On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:24:39 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:08:18AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > > Hmm. I understand what you are saying conceptually (i.e. the .text > > could get yanked before we hit the next line of code, in this case the > > "return 0"). However, holding a reference when you _know_ someone else > > holds a reference to me says that one of the references is redundant. > > In addition, there is certainly plenty of precedence for > > module_put(THIS_MODULE) all throughout the kernel (including > > module_put_and_exit()). Are those broken as well? > > Maybe not, but I don't know why. It works fine as long as you don't > unload any modules though :) Rusty, could you enlighten us please? Yep, they're almost all broken. A few have comments indicating that someone else is holding a reference (eg. loopback). But at some point you give up playing whack-a-mole for random drivers. module_put_and_exit() does *not* have this problem, BTW. Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
