On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 16:26 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 16:30 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> > 2nd of two patches. This patch enhances modprobe to operate like rmmod
> > in non-blocking mode. It also adds a -w option to allow for explicit blocking
> > operation.
>
> As I suspected, this patch isn't in the tree. I am going to commit it
> now because it makes sense. I'm also going to sort out moving things to
> kernel.org this afternoon while I'm at it - I don't want to confuse
> people with kerneltools.org any more now I've got a kernel.org acc.
1) You don't want to hand the "wait" flag (ie ~O_NONBLOCK) to
sub-rmmods,
2) You need to do something about this code if wait is specified:
if (usecount != 0) {
if (!ignore_inuse)
error("Module %s is in use.\n", name);
goto remove_rest;
}
Cheers,
Rusty.
> On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 16:30 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> > 2nd of two patches. This patch enhances modprobe to operate like rmmod
> > in non-blocking mode. It also adds a -w option to allow for explicit blocking
> > operation.
>
> As I suspected, this patch isn't in the tree. I am going to commit it
> now because it makes sense. I'm also going to sort out moving things to
> kernel.org this afternoon while I'm at it - I don't want to confuse
> people with kerneltools.org any more now I've got a kernel.org acc.
1) You don't want to hand the "wait" flag (ie ~O_NONBLOCK) to
sub-rmmods,
2) You need to do something about this code if wait is specified:
if (usecount != 0) {
if (!ignore_inuse)
error("Module %s is in use.\n", name);
goto remove_rest;
}
Cheers,
Rusty.