Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 09:54:00 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: des@des.no Cc: dfr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: newbus flaw Message-ID: <20040513.095400.26471613.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpsme4bo5g.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <xzp8yfxcrs7.fsf@dwp.des.no> <200405130927.01034.dfr@nlsystems.com> <xzpsme4bo5g.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <xzpsme4bo5g.fsf@dwp.des.no>
des@des.no (Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav) writes:
: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> writes:
: > When the old module unloaded, its driver will have detached from th=
e =
: > device which it created. There is no reference to an old driver_t. =
Its =
: > perfectly safe for the new driver to use the old device.
: =
: so why do you say I "shouldn't reset the old driver and desc"?
subr_bus.c does that already on detach. The association between
devclass and device_t is done just prior to probe being called on a
per device basis.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040513.095400.26471613.imp>