Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page] | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | 06 Nov 2000 11:09:41 -0700 |
| |
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> writes:
> The current situation is equivalent to stopping forwarding packets each > time an app on the local machine decides it wants to send its own packets, > after a period of inactivity. > > Defaulting to zero on boot is fine. Defaulting to zero after the module > has been auto-unloaded and auto-loaded again is less good.
Well we don't have auto unload. And module persistent data for the second load case causes chaos with the goal of having exactly the same code in modules and compiled in kernel code.
It would probably be better (in this case) to increment the module count when the mixer settings go above 0, and decrement it when the settings go totally to 0. This prevents an unwanted unload.
But for reliability and code simplicity there does not yet seem to be a case for persistent module storage.
Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |