Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:36:12 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] kldunload -f argument. Message-ID: <20040709113612.40e3a5c8@dev.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: <6595.1089317548@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <6595.1089317548@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 22:12:28 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> In the new world order, a new event is introduced MOD_QUIESCE[1].
[.....]
> Comments ?
I would have thought a MOD_UNQUIESCE would be required too - maybe called
MOD_ACTIVATE (but I don't care much about the name). It'd make things
more orthogonal.
When a module is loaded, it would be in a quiescent state allowing only a
MOD_UNLOAD or a MOD_ACTIVATE. It's open for business between MOD_ACTIVATE
and MOD_QUIESCE.
The idea is that the user can be more active in getting rid of the active
module by QUIESCEing it, then running around murdering processes before
unloading it.
A couple of new flags could be added:
kldload -a module don't activate it
kldunload -q module only quiesce the module
kldstat would need to have a column to show whether a module was quiescent.
I'm not sure if kldunload should MOD_ACTIVATE if the MOD_QUIESCE succeeds
and the MOD_UNLOAD fails.... just an implementation detail I guess.
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040709113612.40e3a5c8>