Hi,
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> That's debatable. Arguably, a failed ->module_cleanup() should be
> retried on every rmmod -a, but expecting module.c to just keep
> retrying mindlessly on its own sounds too much like a busy wait.
Hmmm. You might as well give it back to the user.
rmmod: remove failed: do it again!
So the cleanup code could as well just do it on its own.
> > Why is that sloppy? E.g. kfree() happily accepts NULL pointers as well.
>
> That is sloppy. Different discussion.
What should kfree do in your opinion? BUG()?
doodle.c:12: attempted to free NULL pointer, as you know it already is.
> I take it that the points you didn't reply to are points that you
> agree with? (The main point being, that we both advocate a simple,
> two-method interface for module load/unload.)
You could even do it using three methods.
Thunder
-- --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .- --/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..- .- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.- --./.-/-.../.-./.././.-../.-.-.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:34 EST