From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 31 09:28:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA28439 for current-outgoing; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:28:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA28421 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:28:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA09639; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:12:14 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199703311712.KAA09639@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: A new Kernel Module System To: dg@root.com Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:12:14 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, dfr@nlsystems.com, current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199703310227.SAA06086@root.com> from "David Greenman" at Mar 30, 97 06:27:51 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >> 1.2. Lifecycle of an LKM > >> > >> The user initiates a module load (either by mounting a filesystem > >> or by explicitly calling modload(8)). > > > >This is a hack brought on because the loader is not in kernel space. > >This was a policy decision by the FreeBSD core team. > > It was? I've always advocated for the linker to be in the kernel and I > don't recall any other core member disagreeing. The reality from my point > of view is that this is simply the way we got the code from you. Garrett disagreed; this is not to say that he didn't have good reasons, but I believe the benefits outweigh the additional size and other issues which he raises. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.