In message <5.1.0.14.2.20030220092216.0d3fefd0@mail1.qualcomm.com> you write:
> >There has been talk of this, but OTOH, the admin has explicitly gone
> >out of their way to remove this module. They really don't want anyone
> >new using it. Presumably at this very moment they are killing off all
> >the processes they can find with such a socket.
> The thing is that once those processes are killed sockets will be
> destroyed and release the module anyway. i.e. There is no reason to
> sort of artificially force accept() to fail. Everything will be cleaned
> up once the process is gone.
Yes, but in practical terms it's probably going to fork a child with
that socket.
> >I think it can be argued both ways, honestly.
> Yep. And I'd argue in for of module_get() :)
My only real insistence in this is that such an interface be called
__try_module_get(), because the "__" warn people that it's a "you'd
better know *exactly* what you are doing", even though the "try" is a
bit of a misnomer.
"module_get" sounds like a "simpler" try_module_get()...
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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 - 22:00:32 EST