Re: [RFC] Is an alternative module interface needed/possible?

From: Adam J. Richter (adam@yggdrasil.com)
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 08:51:50 EST


On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Roman Zippel wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Adam J. Richter wrote:

>> The ability to remove a module is generally independent of
>> whether or not there is any hardware present at that moment for which
>> the module supplies a driver. Instead, the determining issue is
>> whether there are file descriptors open for that driver.

>I don't understand, what you're trying to say.
>File descriptors are not the only way to access a driver and the ability
>to remove a module is only dependent on the number of references to this
>module.

        You're right. My second sentence was an oversimplification.
I should have said "software references" rather than file descriptors
to include things like "ifconfig eth0 up" creating a reference,
mounting a block device creating a refernece, etc. (Perhaps I
should have stated only my first sentence and stopped there.)

        Anyhow, my point is that removing a piece of hardware
does not require that the corresponding module be unloaded
immediately.

Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
adam@yggdrasil.com \ / Milpitas, California 95035
+1 408 309-6081 | g g d r a s i l United States of America
                         "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
-
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 Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:29 EST