From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca In-Reply-To: <1408466581.29765.124.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> References: <20140819144839.GA1270@thunk.org> <20140819145547.GB18536@roeck-us.net> <20140819152350.GE11085@thunk.org> <20140819154029.GE5423@mwanda> <20140819154738.GB16948@roeck-us.net> <1408466581.29765.124.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> From: Grant Likely Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 12:13:40 -0500 Message-ID: To: David Woodhouse Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] No more module removal -- Unconference track List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 08:47 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> >> If you want to taint the kernel on module removal because it is known that many >> drivers have bugs in their removal code, > > Most drivers don't have "removal code" per se. They have "unbind" code. > Which you can still exercise without actually unloading the driver. Many platform, i2c, spi drivers have moved to macro generated module removal code that does nothing but unregister the struct device_driver. g.