On 12/19/17 14:51, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 23:10:00 +0530 Pravin Shedge > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >>> If so, why do you think we shiould alter lib/test_sort.c to behave in >>> this atypical fashion? >> >> If test case is going affects only at boot time or at module load >> time, it's smart decision to unload module >> automatically on successful completion. > > OK. > > I think it does make sense for a lib/text_*.ko type module to unload > itself after successful completion of the test. However: > > - returning a fake error code from the module's module_init() is a > daft way of doing that. We should find a way to let the > module_init() handler tell do_init_module() "I succeeded, but please > unload me anyway". So the initial sys_init_module() call doesn't say > "it failed". Could create a new, kernel-internal errno for this and > have do_init_module() rewrite that to 0. > > Maybe. A sys_init_module() caller's expectation is that if the > syscall succeeded then the module is now loaded. > > Well. Except for the test_*.ko modules, which are special. > > - Changing any test module so that it now auto-unloads on success is > a non-back-compat change. The practical effect of which will be very > minor: a subsequent rmmod finds that the module isn't there. > > I'm not sure what to do, really. Does any of this matter much at all?
Nope. But I would merge this patch that returns fake-error so that the module doesn't remain loaded, similar to what some others also do. I don't think it's worth a new return value for success_but_unload_me. -- ~Randy
