Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:03:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:03:07 -0500 Received: from panic.ohr.gatech.edu ([130.207.47.194]:17412 "EHLO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:02:48 -0500 Message-ID: <3A0B10F3.32A14DF4@mandrakesoft.com> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 16:02:43 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik Organization: MandrakeSoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0-test11 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: root@chaos.analogic.com CC: Brian Gerst , Linux kernel Subject: Re: Module open() problems, Linux 2.4.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Richard B. Johnson" wrote: > I suppose. Look at what you just stated! This means that a reported > value is now worthless. > > To restate, somebody decided that we didn't need this reported value > anymore. Therefore, it is okay to make it worthless. > > I don't agree. The De-facto standard has been that the module usage > count is equal to the open count. This became the standard because > of a long established history. > > This is one of the tools we use to verify that an entire system > is functioning properly. Now, somebody decided that I didn't need > this tool. You assumed the module count == device open count, when that was in fact never the case. The 2.4.x kernel changes merely shattered false assumptions you held on your part. The kernel thread example I described in my last e-mail holds true for kernel 2.2.x as well, maybe 2.0.x too. Jeff -- Jeff Garzik | Building 1024 | Would you like a Twinkie? MandrakeSoft | - 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/