Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 15:50:15 -0400 From: "Yevmenkin, Maksim N, CSCIO" <myevmenkin@att.com> To: "'hackers@freebsd.org'" <hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: kerneld for FreeBSD Message-ID: <E598F159668DD311B9C700902799EAF4473419@njb140po01.ems.att.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Mike Smith wrote: > > [...] > > > This is, IMO, a good idea. I certainly don't want some > smartass daemon > > > unloading a module just because it thinks it should. 8) [...] > I have no faith at all any metric other than one determined > by the module > itself to indicate "unuse", and if a module wants to unload > itself due to so you point is that we could put a "use/unuse" logic inside each of kernel module. is that correct? even if different kernel modules implement device drivers for the same class of hardware? network interfaces (cards) for example. i would say if interface is marked as ``down'', has no IP, has no references in routing table/firewall, it could be considered as ``gone''. another problem here is that you can use the same module/device right after you have unloaded it. that is a different kind of problem. and, IMHO, it should be solved at configuration level. or even in module itself. for example PSEUDO_DEVICE modules. as far as i know they can not be unloaded. as far as i know sun solaris is able to load/unload dynamicaly kernel modules. and module itself does not perform any attempts to verify its "use/unuse". > "unuse", it can already do so. I don't want or need a daemon > to do this. thanks, emax 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?E598F159668DD311B9C700902799EAF4473419>