Re: why is modprobe (and nothing else) exec()'d?

From: Keith Owens (kaos@ocs.com.au)
Date: Fri Oct 13 2000 - 09:14:38 EST

Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: VM: do_try_to_free_memory failed for XXXX, 2.2.17, 2.2.18pre3"
Previous message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: VM: do_try_to_free_memory failed for XXXX, 2.2.17, 2.2.18pre3"
In reply to: Chris Swiedler: "why is modprobe (and nothing else) exec()'d?"
Next in thread: Brian Gerst: "Re: why is modprobe (and nothing else) exec()'d?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:01:56 -0400,
"Chris Swiedler" <chris.swiedler@sevista.com> wrote:
>Why is modprobe kept as a separate executable, when nothing else in the
>kernel is (seems to be)?

modprobe is a user space tool, it can be used by hand at any time. It
shares a lot of code with insmod and depmod, another pair of user space
tools. It is not the only one, exec_usermodehelper() is a general routine
and is used by baycom_epp as well (for /usr/sbin/eppfpga).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: VM: do_try_to_free_memory failed for XXXX, 2.2.17, 2.2.18pre3"
Previous message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: VM: do_try_to_free_memory failed for XXXX, 2.2.17, 2.2.18pre3"
In reply to: Chris Swiedler: "why is modprobe (and nothing else) exec()'d?"
Next in thread: Brian Gerst: "Re: why is modprobe (and nothing else) exec()'d?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:25 EST