rusty@rustcorp.com.au (Rusty Russell) wrote on 12.07.02 in <20020712035658.83B41412D@lists.samba.org>:
> As implemented, it results in spurious failure. Failing to do
> something because the module was being removed at the time, and
> falling back to module load fails because the old module hasn't
> released some resource yet.
Hmm.
Anyone thought about the idea of parking a module in unregistered-but-not-
removed state, such that it can be "reloaded" by just getting it to
reregister, and only actually removing it later (from a userspace
trigger)?
Or would that only move the problem moment?
MfG Kai
-
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 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:22 EST