Messages in this thread | | | From | David Mosberger <> | Date | Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:47:20 -0800 | Subject | Re: 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/
| |