Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:34:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:34:07 -0500 Received: from slc510.modem.xmission.com ([166.70.7.2]:51973 "EHLO flinx.biederman.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:33:57 -0500 To: David Woodhouse Cc: Oliver Xymoron , Keith Owens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page] In-Reply-To: From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 06 Nov 2000 11:09:41 -0700 In-Reply-To: David Woodhouse's message of "Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:02:53 +0000 (GMT)" Message-ID: Lines: 22 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Woodhouse writes: > The current situation is equivalent to stopping forwarding packets each > time an app on the local machine decides it wants to send its own packets, > after a period of inactivity. > > Defaulting to zero on boot is fine. Defaulting to zero after the module > has been auto-unloaded and auto-loaded again is less good. Well we don't have auto unload. And module persistent data for the second load case causes chaos with the goal of having exactly the same code in modules and compiled in kernel code. It would probably be better (in this case) to increment the module count when the mixer settings go above 0, and decrement it when the settings go totally to 0. This prevents an unwanted unload. But for reliability and code simplicity there does not yet seem to be a case for persistent module storage. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/