lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Binary only module question
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules,

Will the list be available somewhere?

I'm working on a tool that (among other things) indicates
what is "accepted practice" for loadable modules that
are binary. I seem to recall Linus saying, some years
ago, something about the the fact that the module must
not be fundamental to basic kernel operation. I can't remember
the exact details of the quote (if anyone has it, I'd
appreciate a reference to it), but I thought the general
spirit was that add-on's are OK, but basic functionality
(like the scheduler, memory management, driver
*systems* (not drivers themselves), etc.) were off limits for
being binary modules.

I'm assuming that if a module is currently known, and there
does not appear to be great backlash against it, that it
is accepted practice. Also, I assume that modules that
perform essentially the same functionality as these would
also be acceptable (from a community standpoint - the
legal standpoint is a different matter). Basically, I'm
infering a kind of community precendence from existing
known binary modules?

Am I way off?

(And yes, I know that given a choice, the community
vastly prefers an open source module over a binary module)

____________________________________________________________
Tim Bird Lineo, Inc.
Senior VP, Research 390 South 400 West
tbird@lineo.com Lindon, UT 84042
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.164 / U:27.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site