On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
tested it too, running linux 2.6.23 in a qemu instance, and the patch
worked. But i would prefer to take the try_module_get() stuff into
pkt_setup_dev() because it is used also in the older procfs interface.
Can we run into the same problem here,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> tested it too, running linux 2.6.23 in a qemu instance, and the patch worked.
> But i would prefer to take the try_module_get() stuff into pkt_setup_dev()
> because
> it is used also in the older procfs interface. Can we run into the same
> problem here,
too, like sysfs now?
Maybe also the "/sys/class/pktcdvd/remove" command should be wrapped with an
try_module_get() ???
-Thomas
- original Nachricht
Betreff: Re: pktcdvd oops
Gesendet: Mi 07 Nov 2007 23:07:10 CET
Von: "Peter Osterlund"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
tested it too, running linux 2.6.23 in a qemu instance, and the patch worked.
But i would prefer to take the try_module_get() stuff into pkt_setup_dev()
because
it is used also in the older procfs interface. Can we run into the same
problem here, means
too, like sysfs now?
Maybe also the /sys/class/pktcdvd/remove command should be wrapped with an
try_module_get() ???
-Thomas
- original Nachricht
Betreff: Re: pktcdvd oops
Gesendet: Mi 07 Nov 2007 23:07:10 CET
Von: Peter Osterlund[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Tejun Heo
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
tested it too, running linux 2.6.23 in a qemu instance, and the patch
worked. But i would prefer to take the try_module_get() stuff into
pkt_setup_dev() because it is used also in the older procfs interface.
Can we run into the same problem here,
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Peter Osterlund wrote:
If the
__module_get() is not safe because the module code could have already
been unloaded, how can it possibly be made safe by adding more code to
the pktcdvd module? If the module is unloaded, trying to execute its
code can't be a
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Peter Osterlund wrote:
If the
__module_get() is not safe because the module code could have already
been unloaded, how can it possibly be made safe by adding more code to
the pktcdvd module? If the module is unloaded, trying to execute its
code can't be a
Peter Osterlund wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Thomas Maier wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> have not tested it yet, but i quess, the code mentioned by Peter
>> is in pkt_new_dev() that is called by pkt_setup_dev():
>>
>> /* This is safe, since we have a reference from open(). */
>>
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Thomas Maier wrote:
Hello,
have not tested it yet, but i quess, the code mentioned by Peter
is in pkt_new_dev() that is called by pkt_setup_dev():
/* This is safe, since we have a reference from open(). */
__module_get(THIS_MODULE);
So, now, there
Hello,
have not tested it yet, but i quess, the code mentioned by Peter
is in pkt_new_dev() that is called by pkt_setup_dev():
/* This is safe, since we have a reference from open(). */
__module_get(THIS_MODULE);
So, now, there must be checks in every sysfs operation in
[Greg cc'd]
Peter Osterlund wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> You don't seem to have a bugzilla account, so could not reassign to you.
>> See http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9294
>
> Problem is repeatable on my computer. It dies in __module_get() on
[Greg cc'd]
Peter Osterlund wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
Hi Peter,
You don't seem to have a bugzilla account, so could not reassign to you.
See http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9294
Problem is repeatable on my computer. It dies in __module_get() on this
line:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Thomas Maier wrote:
Hello,
have not tested it yet, but i quess, the code mentioned by Peter
is in pkt_new_dev() that is called by pkt_setup_dev():
/* This is safe, since we have a reference from open(). */
__module_get(THIS_MODULE);
So, now, there
Hello,
have not tested it yet, but i quess, the code mentioned by Peter
is in pkt_new_dev() that is called by pkt_setup_dev():
/* This is safe, since we have a reference from open(). */
__module_get(THIS_MODULE);
So, now, there must be checks in every sysfs operation in
Peter Osterlund wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Thomas Maier wrote:
Hello,
have not tested it yet, but i quess, the code mentioned by Peter
is in pkt_new_dev() that is called by pkt_setup_dev():
/* This is safe, since we have a reference from open(). */
__module_get(THIS_MODULE);
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
Hi Peter,
You don't seem to have a bugzilla account, so could not reassign to you.
See http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9294
Problem is repeatable on my computer. It dies in __module_get() on this
line:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
Hi Peter,
You don't seem to have a bugzilla account, so could not reassign to you.
See http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9294
Problem is repeatable on my computer. It dies in __module_get() on this
line:
18 matches
Mail list logo
