On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 08:00:05AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > I'm more interested in the case where the module is loaded for the second > time: Is there really a reason to unload a module in normal usage? Beyond miniscule memory savings and hack value? You can solve the whole problem with a loud "don't do that". Andrew - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... Horst von Brand
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... Alan Cox
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... Paul Jakma
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... Alan Cox
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... Paul Jakma
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... Keith Owens
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... Oliver Xymoron
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... David Woodhouse
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... Jeff Garzik
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... David Woodhouse
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... Andrew Pimlott
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... Oliver Xymoron
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... David Woodhouse
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... Eric W. Biederman
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... Alan Cox
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... Helge Hafting
- Re: Persistent module storage [was... Keith Owens
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated as of 2.4.0-te... tytso