Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:33:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:33:01 -0400 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:24057 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:33:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:35:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Alexander Viro To: Keith Owens cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [OKS] Module removal In-Reply-To: <32193.1025585595@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1242 Lines: 36 On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Keith Owens wrote: > For netfilter, the use count reflects the number of packets being > processed. Complex and potentially high overhead. _Why_??? If some rule in your chains needs a module foo, you probably want foo to stay around until that rule is removed. Even if there's no traffic whatsoever. So what's the problem with making use count equal to number of rules referencing the module? You need exclusion between chain changes and chain traversing anyway... > All of this requires that the module information be passed in multiple > structures and assumes that all code is careful about reference > counting the code it is about to execute. There has to be a better > way! You know, I'd rather trust core code to do something right than expect all drivers to follow any non-trivial rules (and "you should not block in " _is_ non-trivial enough). No comments on the network devices - I'll need to read through the code to answer that one... - 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/