Re: Rusty's module talk at the Kernel Summit

Kai Henningsen
2002-07-12T06:56:44Z

rusty@rustcorp.com.au (Rusty Russell) wrote on 12.07.02 in <20020712035658.83B41412D@lists.samba.org>:

> As implemented, it results in spurious failure. Failing to do
> something because the module was being removed at the time, and
> falling back to module load fails because the old module hasn't
> released some resource yet.

Hmm.

Anyone thought about the idea of parking a module in unregistered-but-not-
removed state, such that it can be "reloaded" by just getting it to
reregister, and only actually removing it later (from a userspace
trigger)?

Or would that only move the problem moment?

MfG Kai