>>> On 29.04.11 at 10:44, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:31:27 +0100 > >>>>> On 29.04.11 at 10:10, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 08:41:10 +0100 >>> >>>> You talk of rmmod on the very module, but the issue is about >>>> modprobe -r on a dependent module. I cannot believe you consider >>>> it correct that *implicit* unloading of bridge.ko should happen when >>>> bridges are configured. >>> >>> Which module in particular depends upon bridge and causes the >>> problem? >> >> The problem was observed (a long time ago) with ebtable_broute, >> and I cannot see how this would have changed meanwhile. > > Well your change makes it so that someone who actually _wants_ to > unload the bridge module, regardless of configuration, cannot do so. > > I think that's a worse problem than this ebtables thing. > > Nothing on the system should be hitting modules with unload requests > unless the user explicitly asked for that specific module to be > unloaded. At least not by default. > > So the me the problem is perhaps that "modprobe -r" does this auto > dependency unloading thing by default. > > When we first fixed network device drivers so that they now properly > always run with no module refcount at all, people complained because > there were some distributions that ran some daemon that periodically > looked for "unreferenced" modules and "helped" the user by > automatically unloaded them. > > We killed that foolish daemon, and we can fix "modprobe -r" too. Michal - aren't you the modutils maintainer? What are your thoughts here? (The original report we got is https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=267651.) > Does "rmmod" have this behavior too? If not, and it does the right > thing by only unloaded what the user asked for, then people should > use that. No, it doesn't. Other than modprobe, rmmod deals only with the module specified. > I really don't in any way want to block people from being able to > cleanly unload the bridge module, regardless of configuration, if > that's what they want so your patch as written is not going to be > considered for inclusion. I understood that meanwhile, yet fail to see an alternative solution (imo this auto-unloading is quite desirable in other cases). Jan _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
