Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Remove module reference counting. | Date | Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:13:55 +1000 |
| |
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/
| |