Re: try_module_get code understanding
> Then what is return value if my module tries to 'get' a module which does not > exist (and is a module, not in-built)? . Is it '1' ? > Or am I imagining a hypothetical scenario which would not exist? That is not supposed to happen. After a module got unloaded there shouldn't be any objects around anymore that have an .owner member with an address that points to the now non-existent module. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: try_module_get code understanding
Thanks for you reply, please see inline.
Heiko Carstens de.ibm.com> writes:
>
[snip]
> > static inline int try_module_get(struct module *module){
> > int ret = 1; <--- error case when !module
> > if (module) {
> > unsigned int cpu = get_cpu();
> > if (likely(module_is_live(module)))
> > local_inc(>ref[cpu].count);
> > else
> > ret = 0; <--- error case
> > put_cpu();
> > }
> > return ret; <
> > }
> >
[snip]
> Somewhere in module.h you have:
>
> #ifdef MODULE
> #define THIS_MODULE (&__this_module)
> #else /* !MODULE */
> #define THIS_MODULE ((struct module *)0)
> #endif
>
> So this just means, that THIS_MODULE is NULL for compiled in modules
> and therefore try_module_get(NULL) succeeds. It's not an error case.
Agreed.
Then what is return value if my module tries to 'get' a module which does not
exist (and is a module, not in-built)? . Is it '1' ?
Or am I imagining a hypothetical scenario which would not exist?
Thanks again for your fast response.
Shreyansh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: try_module_get code understanding
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:19:06 -, Shreyansh Jain said:
> -
> static inline int try_module_get(struct module *module){
> int ret = 1; <--- error case when !module
> if (module) {
> unsigned int cpu = get_cpu();
> if (likely(module_is_live(module)))
> local_inc(>ref[cpu].count);
> else
> ret = 0; <--- error case
> put_cpu();
> }
> return ret; <
> }
> 1. In case the module pointer passed is invalid (NULL) this function would
> return 1 (error case)
> 2. In case the module pointer is OK, and module is currently not being
> removed,
> reference count would be incremented and 1 returned (non error case)
> 3. In case the module pointer is OK, and module reference count can NOT be
> increased, 0 would be returned (error case).
>
> As you can observe from above points, 0 and 1 are returned for error cases. I
> am
> a little confused and wondering if there is something which I am missing in
> this
> code??.
Go look at the call sites for this function - I bet that most of them, if they
check the return code at all, only check for zero or nonzero, because they only
*care* about the case that returns zero. Since they already know they're not
passing a NULL pointer, they don't worry about that case returning a 1. So
there's only two realistic returns - either the module is live or it isn't.
pgp6bKpoVjkA4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: try_module_get code understanding
> I was going through try_module_get function in include/linux/module.h file
> (2.6.22 stock kernel) - which is like:
>
> -
> static inline int try_module_get(struct module *module){
> int ret = 1; <--- error case when !module
> if (module) {
> unsigned int cpu = get_cpu();
> if (likely(module_is_live(module)))
> local_inc(>ref[cpu].count);
> else
> ret = 0; <--- error case
> put_cpu();
> }
> return ret; <
> }
>
>
> What I understand about the code flow is:
> -- module live would return the flag stating that this module can be reference
> and is NOT being removed currently.
>
> 1. In case the module pointer passed is invalid (NULL) this function would
> return 1 (error case)
> 2. In case the module pointer is OK, and module is currently not being
> removed,
> reference count would be incremented and 1 returned (non error case)
> 3. In case the module pointer is OK, and module reference count can NOT be
> increased, 0 would be returned (error case).
>
> As you can observe from above points, 0 and 1 are returned for error cases. I
> am
> a little confused and wondering if there is something which I am missing in
> this
> code??.
>
> Can anyone help me out with this? Any help would be highly appreciated.
Somewhere in module.h you have:
#ifdef MODULE
#define THIS_MODULE (&__this_module)
#else /* !MODULE */
#define THIS_MODULE ((struct module *)0)
#endif
So this just means, that THIS_MODULE is NULL for compiled in modules
and therefore try_module_get(NULL) succeeds. It's not an error case.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: try_module_get code understanding
I was going through try_module_get function in include/linux/module.h file
(2.6.22 stock kernel) - which is like:
-
static inline int try_module_get(struct module *module){
int ret = 1; --- error case when !module
if (module) {
unsigned int cpu = get_cpu();
if (likely(module_is_live(module)))
local_inc(module-ref[cpu].count);
else
ret = 0; --- error case
put_cpu();
}
return ret;
}
What I understand about the code flow is:
-- module live would return the flag stating that this module can be reference
and is NOT being removed currently.
1. In case the module pointer passed is invalid (NULL) this function would
return 1 (error case)
2. In case the module pointer is OK, and module is currently not being
removed,
reference count would be incremented and 1 returned (non error case)
3. In case the module pointer is OK, and module reference count can NOT be
increased, 0 would be returned (error case).
As you can observe from above points, 0 and 1 are returned for error cases. I
am
a little confused and wondering if there is something which I am missing in
this
code??.
Can anyone help me out with this? Any help would be highly appreciated.
Somewhere in module.h you have:
#ifdef MODULE
#define THIS_MODULE (__this_module)
#else /* !MODULE */
#define THIS_MODULE ((struct module *)0)
#endif
So this just means, that THIS_MODULE is NULL for compiled in modules
and therefore try_module_get(NULL) succeeds. It's not an error case.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: try_module_get code understanding
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:19:06 -, Shreyansh Jain said:
-
static inline int try_module_get(struct module *module){
int ret = 1; --- error case when !module
if (module) {
unsigned int cpu = get_cpu();
if (likely(module_is_live(module)))
local_inc(module-ref[cpu].count);
else
ret = 0; --- error case
put_cpu();
}
return ret;
}
1. In case the module pointer passed is invalid (NULL) this function would
return 1 (error case)
2. In case the module pointer is OK, and module is currently not being
removed,
reference count would be incremented and 1 returned (non error case)
3. In case the module pointer is OK, and module reference count can NOT be
increased, 0 would be returned (error case).
As you can observe from above points, 0 and 1 are returned for error cases. I
am
a little confused and wondering if there is something which I am missing in
this
code??.
Go look at the call sites for this function - I bet that most of them, if they
check the return code at all, only check for zero or nonzero, because they only
*care* about the case that returns zero. Since they already know they're not
passing a NULL pointer, they don't worry about that case returning a 1. So
there's only two realistic returns - either the module is live or it isn't.
pgp6bKpoVjkA4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: try_module_get code understanding
Thanks for you reply, please see inline.
Heiko Carstens heiko.carstens at de.ibm.com writes:
[snip]
static inline int try_module_get(struct module *module){
int ret = 1; --- error case when !module
if (module) {
unsigned int cpu = get_cpu();
if (likely(module_is_live(module)))
local_inc(module-ref[cpu].count);
else
ret = 0; --- error case
put_cpu();
}
return ret;
}
[snip]
Somewhere in module.h you have:
#ifdef MODULE
#define THIS_MODULE (__this_module)
#else /* !MODULE */
#define THIS_MODULE ((struct module *)0)
#endif
So this just means, that THIS_MODULE is NULL for compiled in modules
and therefore try_module_get(NULL) succeeds. It's not an error case.
Agreed.
Then what is return value if my module tries to 'get' a module which does not
exist (and is a module, not in-built)? . Is it '1' ?
Or am I imagining a hypothetical scenario which would not exist?
Thanks again for your fast response.
Shreyansh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: try_module_get code understanding
Then what is return value if my module tries to 'get' a module which does not exist (and is a module, not in-built)? . Is it '1' ? Or am I imagining a hypothetical scenario which would not exist? That is not supposed to happen. After a module got unloaded there shouldn't be any objects around anymore that have an .owner member with an address that points to the now non-existent module. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
try_module_get code understanding
Dear List,
I agree that this issue certainly doesn't require to be in this list (rightful
place being kernewbies) but I tried that and got no response - so trying my luck
here.
I was going through try_module_get function in include/linux/module.h file
(2.6.22 stock kernel) - which is like:
-
static inline int try_module_get(struct module *module){
int ret = 1; <--- error case when !module
if (module) {
unsigned int cpu = get_cpu();
if (likely(module_is_live(module)))
local_inc(>ref[cpu].count);
else
ret = 0; <--- error case
put_cpu();
}
return ret; <
}
What I understand about the code flow is:
-- module live would return the flag stating that this module can be reference
and is NOT being removed currently.
1. In case the module pointer passed is invalid (NULL) this function would
return 1 (error case)
2. In case the module pointer is OK, and module is currently not being removed,
reference count would be incremented and 1 returned (non error case)
3. In case the module pointer is OK, and module reference count can NOT be
increased, 0 would be returned (error case).
As you can observe from above points, 0 and 1 are returned for error cases. I am
a little confused and wondering if there is something which I am missing in this
code??.
Can anyone help me out with this? Any help would be highly appreciated.
Regards
Shreyansh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
try_module_get code understanding
Dear List,
I agree that this issue certainly doesn't require to be in this list (rightful
place being kernewbies) but I tried that and got no response - so trying my luck
here.
I was going through try_module_get function in include/linux/module.h file
(2.6.22 stock kernel) - which is like:
-
static inline int try_module_get(struct module *module){
int ret = 1; --- error case when !module
if (module) {
unsigned int cpu = get_cpu();
if (likely(module_is_live(module)))
local_inc(module-ref[cpu].count);
else
ret = 0; --- error case
put_cpu();
}
return ret;
}
What I understand about the code flow is:
-- module live would return the flag stating that this module can be reference
and is NOT being removed currently.
1. In case the module pointer passed is invalid (NULL) this function would
return 1 (error case)
2. In case the module pointer is OK, and module is currently not being removed,
reference count would be incremented and 1 returned (non error case)
3. In case the module pointer is OK, and module reference count can NOT be
increased, 0 would be returned (error case).
As you can observe from above points, 0 and 1 are returned for error cases. I am
a little confused and wondering if there is something which I am missing in this
code??.
Can anyone help me out with this? Any help would be highly appreciated.
Regards
Shreyansh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
