Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 12:42:27 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] kldunload -f argument. Message-ID: <19893.1089369747@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:36:12 BST." <20040709113612.40e3a5c8@dev.lan.Awfulhak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20040709113612.40e3a5c8@dev.lan.Awfulhak.org>, Brian Somers writes: >> 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. I'm not sure I see any real-world application for this ? Can you give an example ? Why would you load a module and not use it ? >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. I could maybe see a point in this but I cannot remember one single instance where I would have actually done this myself. -- 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19893.1089369747>