Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jun 1999 17:39:17 -0700 | From | David Hinds <> | Subject | Re: More general resource allocation scheme: a patch to look at |
| |
On Sat, Jun 19, 1999 at 01:02:10AM +0200, Martin Mares wrote:
> Philosophically speaking, loading and unloading a driver should leave > the system in the same state as before.
I mostly agree with you, that this should be our desired end point. However, if loading a driver gives us information about persistent system state (i.e., the presence of hardware) that other drivers can take advantage of, I see no reason to go out of our way to discard that information.
> I don't understand this argument -- the user either has all the drivers > loaded (and then there is no difference between your and my approach) > or he doesn't, but then the hot plug behaviour is not consistent at all, > since collisions sometimes occur and sometimes not, depending on the > exact order of driver loadings.
I agree with you to the extent that I think we are arguing about corner cases that no one really cares about, and the more I think about it, the less I care, too. My way of doing it has exactly two advantages: (1) we can avoid some resource collisions that are currently not detected but could be, with no driver updates, and (2) by making allocation imply that a region is occupied, I didn't need to enlarge the resource entry structure to include an "occupied" flag, which satisfied my frugal tendencies.
-- Dave
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |