Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:58:46 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, jhb@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Make MOD_QUIESCE a bit more useful.. Message-ID: <489FC706.7050306@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20080810.165333.232928772.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <200808091637.33820.jhb@freebsd.org> <20080810.165333.232928772.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <200808091637.33820.jhb@freebsd.org> > John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> 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. > > That sounds great to me. I'm a bit surprised it is implemented the > way you say... me++ > > Warner > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?489FC706.7050306>