In message <3F250E3A.60305@genebrew.com> you write:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > If module removal is to be a rare and unusual event, it
> > doesn't seem so sensible to go to great lengths in the code to handle
> > just that case. In fact, it's easier to leave the module memory in
> > place, and not have the concept of parts of the kernel text (and some
> > types of kernel data) vanishing.
>
> Rusty and others,
>
> Module removal is *not* a rare event. One common case it is used is on
> laptops during suspend.
Yes, but that cuts both ways: noone fixes these broken drivers, but
work around them using module removal, leaving newbies with broken
laptops 8(
> Last but not least weren't we moving towards a more modular kernel with
> early userspace loading things from initrd as needed? Removing existing
> module functionality, however broken it may be, seems to me a step
> backward in this regard.
Not really. Adding modules is required. Removing them is a more
dubious goal, and if we didn't already have it, I know we'd balk at
doing it.
Hope that clarifies!
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:38 EST