Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:47:41 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [bk/patch] driver model update: device_unregister() |
| |
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Alexander Viro wrote: > > Even aside of the problems with putting filesystems (and filesystem types) > into driverfs (can_unload() for each fs module?), partitions _ARE_ reused. > So logics with ->release() will be a killer.
Note that we don't actually do this yet, and when/if we do it it obviously will require us to have the association data structures in place. And clearly the rule would have to be that a partition can't be re-used while a filesystem is busily bound to it - and that has nothing to do with driverfs/kernel/sysfs/xxxfs.
(That rule pretty much exists already, although we obviously don't _enforce_ the rule, since we don't even have the data structure linkages in place).
As to the "can_unload()" thing, I really suspect that the reason it shows up is because module unloading is fundamentally broken - again regardless of any driverfs issues. Talk to Rusty some day about it ;)
(Side note: it may be that we could _fix_ module unloading by adding a driverfs node to modules too, and getting rid of the "single module count" thing, and replacing it with a more generic "list of nodes using it". The reason module unloading is so painful largely is exactly the fact that we only have a count, and the generic module layer has no idea what is actually _using_ the module - except for other modules. In other words, we get the inter-module dependencies right, but we don't see any other dependencies).
Linus
- 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/
| |