Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:11:28 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys protosw.h src/sys/kern uipc_domain.cuipc_socket2.c Message-ID: <41759110.6010005@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <41758B35.D5340AEA@freebsd.org> References: <200410191513.i9JFDUbf072176@repoman.freebsd.org> <417532A2.9000901@errno.com> <41753522.1E39FEAE@freebsd.org> <200410192329.46723.max@love2party.net> <41758B35.D5340AEA@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > >>Another point: If you really want to keep the possibility to remove a >>protocol, you have to introduce some busy counter that pervents removal while >>the kernel is inside a protocol function. This has to be handled by the >>protocol itself, but it has to be taken care of somehow. >> each protocol array entry could have either a mutex or a refcount or both.. >> >> > >Yes, the protocol has to be able to handle its own unloading. I have >documented that fact. If a protocol in unable to do so it should simply >refuse any unload attempts with EBUSY. > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41759110.6010005>