From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271747AbTGRMbj (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:31:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271749AbTGRMbj (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:31:39 -0400 Received: from bart.one-2-one.net ([217.115.142.76]:16655 "EHLO bart.webpack.hosteurope.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271747AbTGRMbd (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:31:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:46:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Martin Diehl X-X-Sender: martin@notebook.home.mdiehl.de To: Duncan Sands cc: Jeff Garzik , "David S. Miller" , , , Subject: Re: SET_MODULE_OWNER In-Reply-To: <200307181212.09102.baldrick@wanadoo.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Duncan Sands wrote: > If you want to see what I have in mind, do > rmmod uhci-hcd > (or whatever your hcd is). This shows that there was already a problem with > unloading modules with zero refcount. Ok, for the hcd you are right. And yes, I'd prefer to see the hcd's use count getting increased with any interface claimed by an usb client driver... With lsmod reporting use count ==0 people might assume the module is unused and thus rmmod - not much fun if this is beneath a mounted fs. Martin PS: I've just tried this - it's even worse: not only would I expect fs damage, the box is OOPSing and BUGging like hell :-( I'll take this to linux-usb-devel.