Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 16:51:54 +0200 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] kldunload -f argument. Message-ID: <20040709145154.GV12007@darkness.comp.waw.pl> In-Reply-To: <21507.1089374816@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <6595.1089317548@critter.freebsd.dk> <21507.1089374816@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:06:56PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: +> In message <6595.1089317548@critter.freebsd.dk>, Poul-Henning Kamp writes: +> > +> >In an ideal situation, unmount(8) will fail to unload if the +> >filesystem is in use but the administrator has the option of applying +> >the -f(orce) option which tells the kernel: "umount at any cost" [3]. +> > +> > +> >We do not have the same flexibility with kldunload(8), and this is +> >leading to a minor spot of trouble for modules which autoattach to +> >things, like for instance GEOM classes where it can be very hard if +> >not impossible to get the module idle from userland so it can be +> >unloaded. +> +> Here is a patch which does this: +> +> http://phk.freebsd.dk/patch/kldunload.patch +> +> Tests, comments etc welcome! Could we implement those new flags as a flags, i.e: #define LINKER_UNLOAD_FORCE 0x01 (only this) So we don't have to create another syscall when we want to add something in the future. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.FreeBSD.org pjd@FreeBSD.org http://garage.freebsd.pl FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFA7rEKForvXbEpPzQRApS7AKDSQ9UNa0jD4ZmZeME2keWuMohJggCg3hY2 orZ/CK86mH3tuRuScG013tM= =3nnK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040709145154.GV12007>