lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: kmod fix
Kirk Petersen wrote:
>
> > > Now, anyone know how correct the above analysis is? I didn't
> > > have a chance to look at the "offending" modules much (but will certainly
> > > be doing that tonight).
> >
> > With kerneld, we had the ability to do ksystem() from a module. Have we
> > lost this ability ?
>
> Well, ksystem() passed a message to kerneld, so yes, we lost this
> ability. Now, could someone tell me what ksystem() did? I did a search
> through 2.1.89 and nothing used it. I read through the kerneld source
> (because all ksystem() did was pass a message to kerneld) and it didn't
> help much.
>

Yes what it did was nearly the same what the libc system() function
does.
Therefore the name. The only difference was: it did it out of the
kernel!
Please think just a second about the possible races circularities and so
on an so on ... No wonder anybody used it in the kernel. Tought some
times ago there was one exception: smbfs. Tought accidentally I know
Volker personally, Some short discussion about it between us revealved
that this was really a sign of a bad design in smbfs.

BTW. there where many other things which kerneld was supposed to do,
which *nobody* was st... to use, like: request_route, request_blaker and
therelike.

--
=========================================================================
In real life: System Programmer at AIS AXON GmbH

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [W:0.071 / U:1.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site