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

From: Brian Gerst (
Date: Fri Oct 13 2000 - 09:30:20 EST

Chris Swiedler wrote:
> Why is modprobe kept as a separate executable, when nothing else in the
> kernel is (seems to be)?


> What is the advantage to keeping modprobe separate,
> instead of statically linked into the kernel? Are users able to replace
> modprobe with a better version? If so, why not do the same thing with other
> occasionally-used code which could be replaced? Something like Rik's OOM
> killer comes to mind, except that obviously if you're out of memory you're
> not going to be able to load a new executable.

modprobe can be run at any time manually, which means it should remain
completely user space.


Brian Gerst - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to Please read the FAQ at

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