Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:10:40 +0200
From:      "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
To:        Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>
Cc:        arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [RFC] kldunload -f argument. 
Message-ID:  <20536.1089371440@critter.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:58:58 BST." <20040709115858.47efb729@dev.lan.Awfulhak.org> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20040709115858.47efb729@dev.lan.Awfulhak.org>, Brian Somers writes:

>> >The idea is that the user can be more active in getting rid of the active
>> >module by QUIESCEing it, then running around murdering processes before
>> >unloading it.
>> 
>> I could maybe see a point in this but I cannot remember one single instance
>> where I would have actually done this myself.
>
>I guess if_tun.ko springs to mind.  I can reliably unload it if I quiesce it,
>kill all the ``Opened by PID N'' processes, then unload it.

Yeah, that would be somewhat similar to the geom case I guess.

I'll give kldunload a -q option too.

-- 
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?20536.1089371440>