** On Apr 13, Horst von Brand scribbled:
> Ricky Beam <jfbeam@bluetopia.net> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > If you wanted to be a purist, modules need a new function for reporting
> > devfs information... init_module, delete_module(?), devfs_module? That
> > certainly fixes one problem (and kills the need for devfsd.)
>
> No. How do you load a module for /dev/foo117, when /dev/foo117 doesn't
> currently exist? The kernel shouldn't have to know about each and every
That could be easily resolved by depmod. The modules can (in that situation
would _have_ to) use the MODULE_SUPPORTED_DEVICE doc string. That would
state what device(s) they are bound to. Depmod extracts that info and stores
it in /lib/modules/<kver>/device.map. Modinfo then just uses that map to
load appropriate device. Modules without the __module_device in the .modinfo
section wouldn't fit into this scheme, but the symbol can be made mandatory.
> device that might some day show up as a driver module (even third-party,
> binary-only compiled after the kernel proper perhaps). This mandates some
> userland involvement, with some configuration file that tells the daemon
None, provided the above is implemented and enforced. OTOH, loading module
involves userland anyway... - modprobe _is_ userland after all.
marek
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:21 EST