Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:26:56 +0100 (CET) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface |
| |
Hi,
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.
(*) http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=104284223130775&w=2
> > 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 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |