[Top] [All Lists]

Re: dev->destructor

To: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: dev->destructor
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 14:28:22 -0300
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Werner Almesberger <wa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20030501120815.25BE22C155@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Conectiva S.A.
References: <20030501.000058.39187964.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030501120815.25BE22C155@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Em Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:01:19PM +1000, Rusty Russell escreveu:
> But before we redesign module architecture from scratch, let's look at
> a solution with what we do have (assuming Linus takes my damn
> __module_get() patch some day, see below).

Linus took the __module_get patch, I even used it in redesigning the way
struct sock and struct socket are handled in response to Max Krasnyansky
alternative patches
> There are 70 calls to dev_hold() in the kernel.  The vast majority of
> them already have a reference, they just want another one: dev_hold()
> can do __module_get().

> There are a few *sources* of devices: dev_get, dev_get_by*.  These
> should check and fail, using "try_dev_hold()" or something.
> Unfortunately auditing all the __dev_get_by* is quite a task, since
> it's used very widely (and I think, sometime erroneously).
> Completely untested patch below other patch.
> I need more time to digest your proposal in detail, Dave.  Expect
> reply w/in 24 hours.

I'm digesting it as well 8)

- Arnaldo

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>