Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:39:13 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: Question about pseudo filesystems |
| |
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > The expected behaviour is as it has always been: rmmod fails if anyone > > > is using the module, and succeeds if nobody is using the module. The > > > garbage collection of modules is done using "rmmod -a" periodically, as > > > it always has been. > > > > When you say 'rmmod modulename' the module is supposed to be removed, if > > it can be. That is the user's expectation, and qualifies as 'obviously > > correct'. > > > > Garbage collecting should *not* be the primary mechanism for removing > > modules, that is what rmmod is for. Neither should a filesystem module > > magically disappear from the system just because the last mount went > > away, unless the module writer very specifically desires that. This is > > where the obfuscating opinion is coming from: Al has come up with an > > application where he wants the magic disappearing behavior and wants > > to impose it on the rest of the world, regardless of whether it makes > > sense.
Huh?
> I think you've misunderstood. The module does _not_ disappear when the > last file reference is closed. It's reference count is decremented, > that is all. Just the same as if you managed the reference count > yourself. You still need rmmod to actually remove the module.
Never let the facts to stand in a way of a rant. Or presume that ability to write implies ability to read, for that matter...
- 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/
| |