Re: [PATCH] Proposed module init race fix.

[Adam J. Richter]

On 2003-01-15, Rusty Russell wrote:
>It's possible to start using a module, and then have it fail
>initialization.  In 2.4, this resulted in random behaviour.  One
>solution to this is to make all interfaces two-stage: reserve
>everything you need (which might fail), the activate them.  This
>means changing about 1600 modules, and deprecating every interface
>they use.

	Could you explain this "random behavior" of 2.4 a bit more?
As far as I know, if a module's init function fails, it must
unregister everything that it has registered up to that point.

Adam J. Richter     __     ______________   575 Oroville Road
[e-mail]     \ /                  Milpitas, California 95035
[phone]         | g g d r a s i l   United States of America
                         "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."