Re: [2.5 patch] MODULE_FORCE_UNLOAD must depend on MODULE_UNLOAD

From: Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 07:05:04 EST

Next message: Rusty Russell: "Re: Another idea for simplifying locking in kernel/module.c"
Previous message: Rusty Russell: "Re: [PATCH] Make `obsolete params' work correctly if MODULE_SYMBOL_PREFIX is non-empty"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In message <20030107230742.GO6626@fs.tum.de> you write:
> Thanks for spotting this, after reading kernel/module.c it seems obvious
> to me that you are right. The following simple patch fixes it:

Yep. Linus, please apply.

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
--- linux-2.5.54/init/Kconfig.old 2003-01-08 00:05:12.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.5.54/init/Kconfig 2003-01-08 00:05:38.000000000 +0100
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@

config MODULE_FORCE_UNLOAD
         bool "Forced module unloading"
- depends on MODULES && EXPERIMENTAL
+ depends on MODULE_UNLOAD && EXPERIMENTAL
         help
           This option allows you to force a module to unload, even if the
           kernel believes it is unsafe: the kernel will remove the module

Rusty.

--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
-
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/

Next message: Rusty Russell: "Re: Another idea for simplifying locking in kernel/module.c"
Previous message: Rusty Russell: "Re: [PATCH] Make `obsolete params' work correctly if MODULE_SYMBOL_PREFIX is non-empty"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:31 EST