lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Userspace Test Framework for module loader porting
>>>>> On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 22:44:15 +1100, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> said:

>> I'd rather prefer the old (user-level loader)
>> or the new shared-object loader.

Rusty> Really? Because it already exists (and is maintained by
Rusty> someone else) or for some other reason?

Yeah, I'm lazy: I don't really want to have to deal with two new
module loaders: one for 2.6, soon to be followed by one for 2.7. But
if someone volunteers to do and _maintain_ an interim kernel loader,
that's fine with me.

Rusty> I thought about letting archs choose which one they wanted to
Rusty> use, but it would really mess up the core code. Of course,
Rusty> the transition won't break userspace (kind of the whole point
Rusty> of the in-kernel module loader).

But it would be more in keeping with the Linux philosophy: do the
Right Thing, fix up "broken" stuff by doing whatever is necessary.
I'm also a bit worried about changing module loaders so often. Yeah,
once you switch to a kernel-loader, presumably users won't be
affected, but (kernel-module) developers will be.

--david
-
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 13:32    [W:0.057 / U:1.876 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site