[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:0.050 / U:0.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site