Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:45:57 +0930 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bus arch ramblings (was Re: Patches from -current for -stable ... Message-ID: <199710240715.QAA02012@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Oct 1997 23:59:08 MST." <19971023235908.26084@hydrogen.nike.efn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > yep.. that's what the handler allows... my dummy module (the first that > > > I used to test the new code) scheduled a timeout.. then upon unloading > > > I used untimeout to remove it... > > > > ... which is exactly what you're arguing against above. I'm confused > > now. > > wierd... I thought I was arguing for the module tracking it's own > resources... and refusing to unload when it gets the unload event.. :) Um, I proposed a LOAD/UNLOAD event set, and I *thought* you were arguing against them, saying that such actions belonged in the attach/ detach routines. I think we have been in violent agreements. Whoops. > > I meant "where is your whiteboard"? I have that one already 8) > > ahh.. ok.. if someone could mail me an electronic whiteboard.. I'd > gladly use that instead... :) /usr/ports/mbone/wb mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710240715.QAA02012>