Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 9 Feb 2001 04:25:57 +0100 | From | Ingo Oeser <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Small kernel-hacking.tmpl update |
| |
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 01:50:00PM +0000, John Levon wrote: > + <para> > + For more complicated module unload locking requirements, you can set the > + <structfield>can_unload</structfield> function pointer to your own routine, > + which should return <returnvalue>0</returnvalue> if the module is > + unloadable, or <returnvalue>-EBUSY</returnvalue> otherwise. s/is unloadable/cannot be removed/
This makes it more explicit. You could read "is unloadable" as "is not loadable", if you are not that familiar with English.
Rest ist correct AFAICS.
Regards
Ingo Oeser -- 10.+11.03.2001 - 3. Chemnitzer LinuxTag <http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/linux/tag> <<<<<<<<<<<< come and join the fun >>>>>>>>>>>> - 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/
|  |