On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 15:07 -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 00:28 -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 00:20 -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > > > > > So, what's protecting the RT kernel from falling over if a CPU frequency > > > governor module is removed at the wrong moment? > > > > That's a contrived example, it does the right thing in the ones I've > > looked it, but it just occurred to me that this might not be general for > > kernel code where random pointers to modules are getting thrown around. > > I recommend not setting CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD on RT kernels for now. I > looked at programmatically implementing this in Kconfig, but it seems > that CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD is never explicitly set anywhere, it's simply > in the deconfig for each architecture - anyone know Kconfig well enough > to tell us how to fix up Kconfig.preempt to do the right thing? Could you give a different of better example of the problem with modules? This thread has been fairly scant on details .. Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
