[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Rusty Russell wrote:

> > Maybe you could share a bit of your wisdom?
> > 1. Doing the linking in userspace requires two steps, but I still don't
> > know what's so bad about it.
> > 2. This still doesn't explain, why everything has to be moved into kernel,
> > why can't we move more into userspace?
> > 3. You simply moved part of the query syscall functionality to
> > /proc/modules (which btw is still not enough to fix ksymoops).
> I think you'd do far better to implement it yourself for half a dozen
> architectures. It's not my job to teach you things which can be
> gained by reading the code and thinking a little.

As usual you explain nothing, so I still don't know why a complete rewrite
was necessary. The old implementation did work fine within limits and
already has support for all architectures, so why should I just throw it
away? Why was it not possible to first fix the problems of the old system?

> > Well, I'm not against optimizing the module locking (*), as we won't get
> > rid of it in the near feature, but it still has problems.
> >
> > 1. It's adding complexity (however you implement it), I explained it in
> > detail and you still haven't told me, where I'm wrong.
> No, it's exactly the same as before. You can't see that, and I've
> given up explaining it.

So far you explained nothing and if you would just read and try to
understand that damned mail(*), you would know, that I already said that
the complexity is "exactly the same as before". I'm comparing it to other
solutions, which you obviously haven't understood.


> > 2. The module interface is incompatible with other kernel interfaces, I
> > tried to explain that in the mail from saturday, if you think I'm wrong,
> > your input is very welcome, but _please_ answer to that mail.
> This problem is in your mind Roman.

Thanks for another detailed explaination. :(

> > It's too much fun to quote Al here:
> Quoting Al's rant isn't an argument. It wasn't very coherent when he
> wrote it, and it doesn't gain with repetition.

Well, if you don't even try to understand, what Al is trying to tell you,
I'm afraid I can't help you either.

> The code exists. It's simple to use.
> I give up. You're killfiled again 8(

I seriously consider to take over modules maintainership, but I have
neither the energy nor the time to do this alone, so I can only wish
everyone much fun with modules during 2.6.

bye, Roman

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.147 / U:0.796 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site