> > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
