From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270931AbTG2CKd (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:10:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271224AbTG2CKd (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:10:33 -0400 Received: from fmr05.intel.com ([134.134.136.6]:5580 "EHLO hermes.jf.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270931AbTG2CKc convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:10:32 -0400 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Subject: RE: [PATCH] Remove module reference counting. Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:10:30 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PATCH] Remove module reference counting. Thread-Index: AcNVdgYQk4PYYYMIR1+lmRcSDcFPBgAAGU/A From: "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" To: "Rusty Russell" , "Rahul Karnik" Cc: , , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2003 02:10:30.0538 (UTC) FILETIME=[95DE46A0:01C35576] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > From: Rusty Russell [mailto:rusty@rustcorp.com.au] > > Last but not least weren't we moving towards a more modular kernel with > > early userspace loading things from initrd as needed? Removing existing > > module functionality, however broken it may be, seems to me a step > > backward in this regard. > > Not really. Adding modules is required. Removing them is a more > dubious goal, and if we didn't already have it, I know we'd balk at > doing it. Can I add that it is really desirable to remove modules when developing drivers? [and so to avoid reboots when loading new code?]. Iñaky Pérez-González -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own (and my fault)