Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758392AbYG3LmR (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:42:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752756AbYG3LmG (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:42:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:36282 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752558AbYG3LmD (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:42:03 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:40:35 -0400 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: Rusty Russell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Module : call synchronize_sched() between module exit() and free. Message-ID: <20080730114035.GD27711@redhat.com> References: <20080717155724.897537670@polymtl.ca> <20080729211543.GB17097@redhat.com> <20080729224115.GA5209@Krystal> <200807301140.59745.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20080730022751.GA15866@Krystal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080730022751.GA15866@Krystal> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1258 Lines: 41 Hi - On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:27:51PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > [...] > Actually, it's not placing a marker/tracepoint in a module which causes > a problem, this is a simple function call after all, and correctly dealt > with by current module.c code. > [...] Just to spell it out, it is this scenario I'd like to see documented: module-foo.c: foo() { ... trace_mark (foo, "..."); ... } module-bar.c: setup() { ... marker_probe_register ("foo" , ..., &foo_handler ); } teardown() { ... marker_probe_unregister ("foo" , ..., &foo_handler ); } foo_handler() { } 1) module-foo loads 2) module-bar loads 3) module-bar.c:setup() 4) module-foo unloads What happens here? Certainly no more calls to foo_handler, but is that all? (Would it not be desirable for an active marker to cause module-foo's refcount to increase, so as to prevent unloading at this time?) 5) module-bar.c:teardown() Can this teardown code succeed fully even if module-foo is already dead and gone? - FChE -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/