On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 08:56:36PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 06:29:12PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 05:00:30PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> ...
> > > thanks a lot for the clarification on the intent.
> > > I clearly need to understand more
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 06:29:12PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 05:00:30PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
...
> > thanks a lot for the clarification on the intent.
> > I clearly need to understand more on the architecture of the module unload.
> >
> > In any case: the glo
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 05:00:30PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:46:03PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:28:40PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I am trying to understand how to protect efficiently against
> > > module removals whe
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:46:03PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:28:40PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I am trying to understand how to protect efficiently against
> > module removals when a device driver is in use.
> > This issue came up some time ago when
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:28:40PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to understand how to protect efficiently against
> module removals when a device driver is in use.
> This issue came up some time ago when trying netmap
> loaded as a module.
>
> --- Summary of the current mode of ope
