Re: owner field in `struct fs'

From: David Woodhouse (dwmw2@infradead.org)
Date: Mon Jun 26 2000 - 05:15:44 EST

Next message: Rik van Riel: "Re: [PATCH] 2.2.17pre7 VM enhancement Re: I/O performance on 2.4.0-test2"
Previous message: Rik van Riel: "Re: mm 2.2.17pre6"
In reply to: Philipp Rumpf: "Re: owner field in `struct fs'"
Next in thread: Philipp Rumpf: "Re: owner field in `struct fs'"
Reply: Philipp Rumpf: "Re: owner field in `struct fs'"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

prumpf@uzix.org said:
> Yes. schedule() out of a zero-refcount module is a bug. In fact,
> it's quite easy to make it a BUG() as well:

That's nice but not sufficient - just _being_ in a zero-refcount module is a
bug, if you don't have the BKL or the unload_lock.

-- dwmw2

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Rik van Riel: "Re: [PATCH] 2.2.17pre7 VM enhancement Re: I/O performance on 2.4.0-test2"
Previous message: Rik van Riel: "Re: mm 2.2.17pre6"
In reply to: Philipp Rumpf: "Re: owner field in `struct fs'"
Next in thread: Philipp Rumpf: "Re: owner field in `struct fs'"
Reply: Philipp Rumpf: "Re: owner field in `struct fs'"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 21:00:08 EST