On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:08:30 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 03:49:48PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 14:11:16 -0400 > > Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:24:31 -0400 > > > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > How does the module refcounting work after this patch? > > > > > > > > --b. > > > > > > > > > > I think I've goofed this part, actually. I was thinking that we didn't > > > need to bump the refcount here, and that the kernel would realize that > > > nfsd() hadn't returned and would prevent unloading until it had. This > > > doesn't seem to be the case. I'll need to go back and add refcounting > > > back in. > > > > > > > Here's a respun patch that adds back in the module refcounts and also > > removes the unneeded "err = 0;" at the bottom of the loop. Thoughts? > > Looks good to me. I'll apply all 5 (with this version of #4) if noone > catches something else. > > --b. > Sounds good. My only concern here is whether moving the __module_get from the RPC layer to nfsd() itself is OK. I *think* it is since the nfsctl and /proc/fs/nfsd routines are all part of the nfsd module, so we're guaranteed to have a reference there anyway, but if there are potential races then we may want to go back to the old way. I'd appreciate an ack/nack on this from someone who understands module refcounts better than me. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
