[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Chris Swiedler wrote:
> Why is modprobe kept as a separate executable, when nothing else in the
> kernel is (seems to be)?


> 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
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [W:0.067 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site