Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:19:15 -0700 | From | Marcin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |