[RFC] kldunload -f argument.

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <20040709113612.40e3a5c8 at dev.lan.Awfulhak.org>, Brian Somers writes:

>> Comments ?
>
>I would have thought a MOD_UNQUIESCE would be required too - maybe called
>MOD_ACTIVATE (but I don't care much about the name).  It'd make things
>more orthogonal.
>
>When a module is loaded, it would be in a quiescent state allowing only a
>MOD_UNLOAD or a MOD_ACTIVATE.  It's open for business between MOD_ACTIVATE
>and MOD_QUIESCE.

I'm not sure I see any real-world application for this ?  Can you give an
example ?  Why would you load a module and not use it ?

>The idea is that the user can be more active in getting rid of the active
>module by QUIESCEing it, then running around murdering processes before
>unloading it.

I could maybe see a point in this but I cannot remember one single instance
where I would have actually done this myself.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.