> Shutting it down might just not have been implemented. I did only the > reader, and that one should be properly shut down. Indeed. And the device is closed(), which what this disable feature is all about: don't keep loaded device driver. > The consumer thread > was Hugo's idea to separate reading packets from processing it, as well > as simplifying locking for local protocols (that previously did all > their processing in the sending thread). > Due to the added context switches, I'm not yet sure if that's a good > idea, though, anyway, but I never did any measurements either > (regarding CPU load, and performance). IIRC, Ingo did measurements. Can't remember what was the conclusion, but as his design is still there, I bet it was not worth than the previous one. I'll see if I could add consumer shutdown then. One kernel thread less is one kernel thread less. > IIRC the device would need to go away to let the network server remove > the interface. If not even the device disappears, I would start looking > into the USB stack's unpublishing part. I'll investigate it as much as I could. Which is not much these days...