On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 04:47:57PM +0200, Soewono Effendi wrote: > > And I think there must be some locking to protect > if (driver->owner) > __MOD_INC_USE_COUNT(driver->owner); > and > if (driver->owner) > __MOD_DEC_USE_COUNT(driver->owner); > > may be: > lock_kernel(); > if (driver->owner) > __MOD_INC_USE_COUNT(driver->owner); > unlock_kernel(); > and > lock_kernel(); > if (driver->owner) > __MOD_DEC_USE_COUNT(driver->owner); > unlock_kernel(); > > > > The goal is just to minimize the kernel locking time as much as > possible, with the cost of size, I admit that.
Why do you think that the BKL or any lock is needed around the test and set functions? I agree module unloading is extreemly racy, but take a look at the current threads on lkml for some ideas on how to solve this. thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
