Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:22:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:22:29 -0400 Received: from pD952ABA4.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.82.171.164]:18903 "EHLO hawkeye.luckynet.adm") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:22:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:23:23 -0600 (MDT) From: Thunder from the hill X-X-Sender: thunder@hawkeye.luckynet.adm To: Daniel Gryniewicz cc: Thunder from the hill , "Richard B. Johnson" , Daniel Phillips , Pavel Machek , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Bill Davidsen , Linux-Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: simple handling of module removals Re: [OKS] Module removal In-Reply-To: <1026143302.4840.4.camel@athena.fprintf.net> 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: 1094 Lines: 29 Hi, On 8 Jul 2002, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: > Okay, maybe this is a bit naive, but isn't this problem already solved? > Couldn't we just put a read/write lock on the module, where using is > reading, and removing is writing? As I understand it, this should > impose little overhead on the use (read) case, and ensure that, when a > context has the remove (write) lock there are no no users (readers) and > cannot be any? My suggestion could cope with just one lock, but there seems to be something speaking against that. Regards, Thunder -- (Use http://www.ebb.org/ungeek if you can't decode) ------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Version: 3.12 GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$ N--- o? K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G e++++ h* r--- y- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ - 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/