Roman Zippel wrote:
> Let's stay at the main problem, we have find out when it's safe to delete
> an object. For dynamic objects you have the following options:
[...]
> Static objects and functions are freed by the module code and usually we
[...]
Okay so far.
> If we exclude the possibly-wait-forever-option, do you see the problem
> for dynamic objects which also contain references to static data/
> functions?
You mean that two locking mechanisms are used, where one of them
shouldn't be doing all that much ? Well, yes.
Now, is this a problem, or just a symptom ? I'd say it's a symptom:
we already have a perfectly good locking/synchronization method,
and that's through the register/unregister interface, so the
module-specific part is unnecessary.
That much about the theory. Of course, in real life, we have to
face a few more problems:
- if callbacks can happen after apparently successful "unregister",
we die
- if accesses to other static data owned by a module can happen
after apparently successful "unregister", we may die
- if a module doesn't "unregister" at all, we die too
But all these problems equally affect code that does other things
that can break a callback/access, e.g. if we destroy *de->data
immediately after remove_proc_entry returns.
So this is not a module-specific problem.
Agreed ?
- Werner
-- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:19 EST