Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 07:59:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 07:59:38 -0400 Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]:20745 "EHLO smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 07:59:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:02:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: Daniel Phillips cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] new module format In-Reply-To: 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: 1050 Lines: 30 Hi, On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > To add a new user, the active bit has to be set, as shown in this skeleton, > which is pretty much the existing try_inc_mod_count scheme: > > spin_lock(&some_spinlock); > if () > > spin_unlock(&some_spinlock); > > if , do the mount > > In other words, the module has some state, the transitions of which are > protected by a spinlock. This means you still need another lock to protect the data structures and you still have module pointers everywhere. I want to get rid of that "same_spinlock" (aka unload_lock), because it's not needed. I suggest we continue this discussion when I post the new patches in a few days, then it should become more clear. bye, Roman - 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/