Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:53:33 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhb@FreeBSD.org Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Make MOD_QUIESCE a bit more useful.. Message-ID: <20080810.165333.232928772.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <200808091637.33820.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <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 <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...
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080810.165333.232928772.imp>