Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:13:28 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: "Eugene L. Vorokov" <vel@bugz.infotecs.ru> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: problem with unloading device driver Message-ID: <20010827131328.G2218@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <200108270943.f7R9hf901857@bugz.infotecs.ru>; from vel@bugz.infotecs.ru on Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 01:43:41PM %2B0400 References: <200108270943.f7R9hf901857@bugz.infotecs.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 01:43:41PM +0400, Eugene L. Vorokov wrote: > Hello, > > I have a module which adds new device. It does make_dev() and then simulates > mknod() syscall, so that /dev/name is always automatically created. > Also I have a daemon which reads from and writes to this device. The daemon > opens the device once and then holds it open. When my module unloads, > it simulates unlink() and then does detsroy_dev(). I just noticed that > when I unload my module, the first write() by daemon to the fd associated with > that device causes system to crash. Is there really a reason you do not want to keep a persistent device entry in /dev? Aside from cluttering /dev - this is a problem solved in -current with a working devfs. True, -stable does not really have a devfs - the one that was in the tree was removed, because it was way less functional (and working) than the one in -current; still, why, really, should you be worried about one (or five) more device nodes in /dev? G'luck, Peter -- I had to translate this sentence into English because I could not read the original Sanskrit. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010827131328.G2218>