Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:09:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:09:11 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-043-252.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.43.252]:45255 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:09:10 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Roman Zippel Subject: Re: [RFC] new module format Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:13:35 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1220 Lines: 37 On Thursday 18 July 2002 14:02, Roman Zippel wrote: > 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. A module pointer per filesystem does not count as '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. Sure. -- Daniel - 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/