Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:14:31 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Make MOD_QUIESCE a bit more useful.. Message-ID: <1687.1218352471@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:37:33 -0400." <200808091637.33820.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200808091637.33820.jhb@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin writes: >So currently the MOD_QUIESCE event is posted to a module when unloading a kld >so it can veto non-forced unloads. However, the current implementation in >the kernel linker is to run through all the modules in a file, posting >MOD_QUIESCE followed by MOD_UNLOAD on each module serially. Thus, if you >have multiple modules in a single kld and one of the modules veto's an unload >request via MOD_QUIESCE, you don't know as the module author if any of your >modules were unloaded via MOD_UNLOAD or not. I think a better approach would >be to change the kernel linker to invoke MOD_QUIESCE on all modules in a >single pass first. If none of those fail (or it's a forced unload), then it can do a second pass invoking MOD_UNLOAD on all the modules. I thought it already worked that way, so no objection. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1687.1218352471>