On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 13:52 +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007 09:23:12 Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Better might be to put in a waitqueue and wake it up whenever a module is
> > deleted or changes status. Then use_module() can wait if
> > strong_try_module_get() returns
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 13:52 +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 09:23:12 Rusty Russell wrote:
Better might be to put in a waitqueue and wake it up whenever a module is
deleted or changes status. Then use_module() can wait if
strong_try_module_get() returns -EBUSY (up
Rusty,
I read your previous email and thought I'd play with it...and then by
the time I got around to having some time tonight you'd already done it.
You're a machine :-) We actually have some other stuff failing at work
due to this exact bug so I will test against RHEL5 tomorrow also.
Jon.
-
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 15:08:35 Peter Teoh wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2007 10:52 AM, Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 November 2007 09:23:12 Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > Better might be to put in a waitqueue and wake it up whenever a module
> > > is deleted or changes status.
On Nov 13, 2007 10:52 AM, Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007 09:23:12 Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Better might be to put in a waitqueue and wake it up whenever a module is
> > deleted or changes status. Then use_module() can wait if
> > strong_try_module_get()
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 09:23:12 Rusty Russell wrote:
> Better might be to put in a waitqueue and wake it up whenever a module is
> deleted or changes status. Then use_module() can wait if
> strong_try_module_get() returns -EBUSY (up to 30 seconds, then print a
> warning and fail).
And here
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 01:18:27 Jan Glauber wrote:
> If module A depends on module B and module B has not yet finished its
> init() the module loader may print a warning about an unknown symbol.
>
> This happens if module B is still in state MODULE_STATE_COMING,
> as module A runs into
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 02:18:27PM +, Jan Glauber wrote:
> If module A depends on module B and module B has not yet finished its
> init() the module loader may print a warning about an unknown symbol.
>
> This happens if module B is still in state MODULE_STATE_COMING,
> as module A runs into
If module A depends on module B and module B has not yet finished its
init() the module loader may print a warning about an unknown symbol.
This happens if module B is still in state MODULE_STATE_COMING,
as module A runs into resolve_symbol() for a symbol from module B.
resolve_symbol() return 0
If module A depends on module B and module B has not yet finished its
init() the module loader may print a warning about an unknown symbol.
This happens if module B is still in state MODULE_STATE_COMING,
as module A runs into resolve_symbol() for a symbol from module B.
resolve_symbol() return 0
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 02:18:27PM +, Jan Glauber wrote:
If module A depends on module B and module B has not yet finished its
init() the module loader may print a warning about an unknown symbol.
This happens if module B is still in state MODULE_STATE_COMING,
as module A runs into
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 01:18:27 Jan Glauber wrote:
If module A depends on module B and module B has not yet finished its
init() the module loader may print a warning about an unknown symbol.
This happens if module B is still in state MODULE_STATE_COMING,
as module A runs into
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 09:23:12 Rusty Russell wrote:
Better might be to put in a waitqueue and wake it up whenever a module is
deleted or changes status. Then use_module() can wait if
strong_try_module_get() returns -EBUSY (up to 30 seconds, then print a
warning and fail).
And here it
On Nov 13, 2007 10:52 AM, Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 09:23:12 Rusty Russell wrote:
Better might be to put in a waitqueue and wake it up whenever a module is
deleted or changes status. Then use_module() can wait if
strong_try_module_get() returns
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 15:08:35 Peter Teoh wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007 10:52 AM, Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 09:23:12 Rusty Russell wrote:
Better might be to put in a waitqueue and wake it up whenever a module
is deleted or changes status. Then
Rusty,
I read your previous email and thought I'd play with it...and then by
the time I got around to having some time tonight you'd already done it.
You're a machine :-) We actually have some other stuff failing at work
due to this exact bug so I will test against RHEL5 tomorrow also.
Jon.
-
16 matches
Mail list logo
