From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jul  9 10:43:17 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 4412F16A4CE
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Fri,  9 Jul 2004 10:43:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70CA43D2F
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Fri,  9 Jul 2004 10:43:16 +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 i69AgR8h019894;
	Fri, 9 Jul 2004 12:42:27 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
To: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:36:12 BST."
             <20040709113612.40e3a5c8@dev.lan.Awfulhak.org> 
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 12:42:27 +0200
Message-ID: <19893.1089369747@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: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:43:17 -0000

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.