Re: [OKS] Module removal

[Mike Galbraith]

At 08:04 AM 7/2/2002 -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > The suggestion was made that kernel module removal be depreciated or
> > > removed. I'd like to note that there are two common uses for this
> > > capability, and the problems addressed by module removal should be 
> kept in
> > > mind. These are in addition to the PCMCIA issue raised.
> >
> > > 1 - conversion between IDE-CD and IDE-SCSI. Some applications just work
> > > better (or usefully at all) with one or the other driver used to read 
> CDs.
> >
> > The proposal was to deprecate module removal, *not* to deprecate
> > dynamic registration of devices.  If you want to maintain the above
> > functionality, then there's no reason why a device can't be
> > deregistered from one driver and reregistered on another while both
> > drivers are present.  Note that the scsi stack already allows you to
> > dynamically register and deregister specific targets on the fly.
>
>As I am led to understand from reading this thread, there is some
>known bug caused by module removal. Therefore the "solution" is to
>remove module removal capability.

Read the thread more carefully, and you'll understand more than "some
known bug".  Heck, you may even be able to contribute to a more
palatable race solution than depreciating module unload entirely.

>This is absurd. Next, somebody will remove network capability because
>there's some bug in it.  Hello there........?  Are there any carbon-
>based life-forms out there?

I'm not absolutely certain that those life-forms discussing options are
carbon-based ;-) but they have demonstrated considerable knowledge
of the subject IMO.

         -Mike