Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 06:19:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 06:19:23 -0400 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:49426 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 06:19:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 06:16:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Davidsen To: Daniel Phillips cc: Jamie Lokier , Werner Almesberger , Keith Owens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [OKS] Module removal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 Content-Length: 1119 Lines: 26 On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > That's not nice. It requires the calling code to know it's calling a > module and it imposes the inc/dec overhead on callers even when the > target isn't compiled as a module. I don't think so... the module knows, there's a bit of hard code for the module anyway, so that could do the inc/dec and know when the module was in the "about to be removed" state. It's not clear if "it works most of the time now" means we just need to address some simple corner cases or if the whole design of modules needs to be reimplemented to really sweep out the corners, and they're not "simple" at all. This has the feeling that someone could say "we could just..." at any time, and the whole problem would vanish. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - 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/