From: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
To: "Adam J. Richter" <adam@yggdrasil.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, <wa@almesberger.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Is an alternative module interface needed/possible?
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:46:22 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302201337000.1336-100000@serv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200302201209.EAA12261@adam.yggdrasil.com>
Hi,
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> The ability to remove a module is generally independent of
> whether or not there is any hardware present at that moment for which
> the module supplies a driver. Instead, the determining issue is
> whether there are file descriptors open for that driver.
I don't understand, what you're trying to say.
File descriptors are not the only way to access a driver and the ability
to remove a module is only dependent on the number of references to this
module.
bye, Roman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-20 12:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-20 12:09 Adam J. Richter
2003-02-20 12:46 ` Roman Zippel [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-20 13:51 Adam J. Richter
2003-02-20 14:06 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-20 15:38 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-14 12:04 [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface Rusty Russell
2003-02-14 13:21 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-14 13:53 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-14 14:24 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-14 18:30 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-14 20:09 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-15 0:12 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-15 0:51 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-15 2:28 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-15 23:20 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-17 17:04 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-17 23:09 ` [RFC] Is an alternative module interface needed/possible? Roman Zippel
2003-02-18 1:18 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-18 4:54 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-18 7:20 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-18 12:06 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-18 14:12 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-18 12:45 ` Thomas Molina
2003-02-18 17:22 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-19 3:30 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-19 4:11 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-19 23:38 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-20 9:46 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-20 0:40 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-20 2:17 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-23 16:02 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-26 23:26 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-27 12:34 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-27 13:20 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-27 14:33 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-23 23:34 ` Kevin O'Connor
2003-02-24 12:14 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-18 12:35 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-18 14:14 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-19 1:48 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-19 2:27 ` Werner Almesberger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.44.0302201337000.1336-100000@serv \
--to=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=adam@yggdrasil.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=wa@almesberger.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®