[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Module open() problems, Linux 2.4.0
    "Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
    > I suppose. Look at what you just stated! This means that a reported
    > value is now worthless.
    > To restate, somebody decided that we didn't need this reported value
    > anymore. Therefore, it is okay to make it worthless.
    > I don't agree. The De-facto standard has been that the module usage
    > count is equal to the open count. This became the standard because
    > of a long established history.
    > This is one of the tools we use to verify that an entire system
    > is functioning properly. Now, somebody decided that I didn't need
    > this tool.

    You assumed the module count == device open count, when that was in fact
    never the case. The 2.4.x kernel changes merely shattered false
    assumptions you held on your part.

    The kernel thread example I described in my last e-mail holds true for
    kernel 2.2.x as well, maybe 2.0.x too.


    Jeff Garzik |
    Building 1024 | Would you like a Twinkie?
    MandrakeSoft |
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.024 / U:74.728 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site