| To: | shemminger@xxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: dev->destructor |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 06 May 2003 07:25:29 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030505090820.50cd5a13.shemminger@osdl.org> |
| References: | <20030502.134804.78707298.davem@redhat.com> <20030503040949.804182C003@lists.samba.org> <20030505090820.50cd5a13.shemminger@osdl.org> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 09:08:20 -0700 On Sat, 03 May 2003 14:07:41 +1000 Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But Alexey said you can only call unregister_netdev from module > unload, ie. if not a module, it can't be unloaded, hence no refcount > needed. I wrote the above paragraph because I'm not sure if I > understood Alexey correctly? There are several flavors of pseudo-network devices like bridging and VLAN that dynamically create/destroy netdev's even when they are not modules. I think you'll understand what Alexey/Rusty are saying better if you consider statically compiled kernel code as a module with an implicit non-zero reference count :-) |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: dev->destructor, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH 2.5.69] Bug in sys_accept() module ref counts, Sridhar Samudrala |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: dev->destructor, Stephen Hemminger |
| Next by Thread: | Re: dev->destructor, Rusty Russell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |