On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > The expected behaviour is as it has always been: rmmod fails if anyone
> > > is using the module, and succeeds if nobody is using the module. The
> > > garbage collection of modules is done using "rmmod -a" periodically, as
> > > it always has been.
> >
> > When you say 'rmmod modulename' the module is supposed to be removed, if
> > it can be. That is the user's expectation, and qualifies as 'obviously
> > correct'.
> >
> > Garbage collecting should *not* be the primary mechanism for removing
> > modules, that is what rmmod is for. Neither should a filesystem module
> > magically disappear from the system just because the last mount went
> > away, unless the module writer very specifically desires that. This is
> > where the obfuscating opinion is coming from: Al has come up with an
> > application where he wants the magic disappearing behavior and wants
> > to impose it on the rest of the world, regardless of whether it makes
> > sense.
Huh?
> I think you've misunderstood. The module does _not_ disappear when the
> last file reference is closed. It's reference count is decremented,
> that is all. Just the same as if you managed the reference count
> yourself. You still need rmmod to actually remove the module.
Never let the facts to stand in a way of a rant. Or presume that ability to
write implies ability to read, for that matter...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:20 EST