Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:30:20 -0400 | From | Brian Gerst <> |
| |
Chris Swiedler wrote: > > Why is modprobe kept as a separate executable, when nothing else in the > kernel is (seems to be)?
init?
> What is the advantage to keeping modprobe separate, > instead of statically linked into the kernel? Are users able to replace > modprobe with a better version? If so, why not do the same thing with other > occasionally-used code which could be replaced? Something like Rik's OOM > killer comes to mind, except that obviously if you're out of memory you're > not going to be able to load a new executable.
modprobe can be run at any time manually, which means it should remain completely user space.
--
Brian Gerst - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |