From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul  8 21:10:30 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7348216A4CE
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Thu,  8 Jul 2004 21:10:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA86E43D1D
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Thu,  8 Jul 2004 21:10:29 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i68LASBw007552;
	Thu, 8 Jul 2004 23:10:28 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
To: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=)
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Jul 2004 23:04:18 +0200."
             <xzpn02a5hyl.fsf@dwp.des.no> 
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 23:10:28 +0200
Message-ID: <7551.1089321028@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] kldunload -f argument. 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 21:10:30 -0000

In message <xzpn02a5hyl.fsf@dwp.des.no>, =?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=
 writes:
>"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> writes:
>> "Dag-Erling_Smørgrav" writes:
>> > MOD_SHUTDOWN perhaps?
>> We already have that one unfortunately :-(
>
>Ah, silly me.  Well, how about MOD_STOP?

Better, but still not perfect.  The problem is that this is the
kind request, not the direct order:  We're looking for a sensible
version of:

MOD_PREPARE_YOURSELF_TO_BE_UNLOADED_BUT_FAIL_IF_YOU_ARE_IN_USE_PLEASE

:-)

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.