Re: Question about pseudo filesystems

[Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>]

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Jamie Lokier wrote:

> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > The expected behaviour is as it has always been: rmmod fails if anyone
> > > is using the module, and succeeds if nobody is using the module.  The
> > > garbage collection of modules is done using "rmmod -a" periodically, as
> > > it always has been.
> > 
> > When you say 'rmmod modulename' the module is supposed to be removed, if
> > it can be.  That is the user's expectation, and qualifies as 'obviously
> > correct'.
> > 
> > Garbage collecting should *not* be the primary mechanism for removing
> > modules, that is what rmmod is for.  Neither should a filesystem module
> > magically disappear from the system just because the last mount went
> > away, unless the module writer very specifically desires that.  This is
> > where the obfuscating opinion is coming from: Al has come up with an
> > application where he wants the magic disappearing behavior and wants
> > to impose it on the rest of the world, regardless of whether it makes
> > sense.

Huh?
 
> I think you've misunderstood.  The module does _not_ disappear when the
> last file reference is closed.  It's reference count is decremented,
> that is all.  Just the same as if you managed the reference count
> yourself.  You still need rmmod to actually remove the module.

Never let the facts to stand in a way of a rant.  Or presume that ability to
write implies ability to read, for that matter...