Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 00:06:37 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kldunload DIAGNOSTIC idea... Message-ID: <40FE15FD.904@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <77806.1090392273@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <77806.1090392273@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >In message <20040720203739.GA72252@VARK.homeunix.com>, David Schultz writes: > > > >>>Looking for sleep addresses inside the module might make sense too. >>> >>> >>But this is just a heuristic that may sometimes fail. The module >>might be holding resources or locks, it could have callbacks, etc. >>If we're going to offer a forcible unload option, [...] >> >> > >This has _nothing_ to do with forcible unload. > >Please read the subject, again if necessary. > >This is an idea for a debug tool which may help people properly >debug and implement unload *in general*. > as such, speed wouldnot be crucial, so having an alterred version of the stack trace code that walks all available stacks looking for matching addresses would be quite a reasonable thingto do. > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40FE15FD.904>