| To: | rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: dev->destructor |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 06 May 2003 07:23:38 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | shemminger@xxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030506075808.388332C07F@lists.samba.org> |
| References: | <20030505130050.4b9868bb.shemminger@osdl.org> <20030506075808.388332C07F@lists.samba.org> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 14:18:36 +1000 It's logically consistent to make it implicit, and cuts out some code in the unload path. How's this? This looks fine to me. How hard would it be to make this completely consistent in that no module code is ever invoked with modcount == 0? By this I mean keeping the implicit reference after modload succeeds, and then calling ->cleanup() is valid once the count drops to '1'. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: SIOCETHTOOL history ?, arun |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: dev->destructor, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: dev->destructor, Rusty Russell |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 2.5.69] IPV4 should use dev_hold, Stephen Hemminger |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |