On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:19:20AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 01:06 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > That's good. But why don't we have a module name for this driver? > > > > And if we don't have a module name, why would there be a symlink to > > remove? That's what is keeping your module from unloading, right? > > You keep saying "module", and that's making me a bit nervous ;-) > > Just to be sure we're not talking past each other, when you say module, > don't mean the modprobe kind... i hope. This "module" as in driver is > compiled in. (said that before, but you may have missed it)
Ahh, that changes everything here, thanks for letting me know, I had missed this. The problem is that the module_init() is failing, yet this isn't really a module, it's built into the kernel. So some of the module teardown logic is dieing when it thinks that we really have a full module structure here (owner and such). I'll look at this further tomorrow, as I'm travelling pretty much all day today, sorry. thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
