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

• Next message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: VM: do_try_to_free_memory failed for XXXX, 2.2.17, 2.2.18pre3"
• Previous message: David Weinehall: "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: Harald Welte: "Re: why is modprobe (and nothing else) exec()'d?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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

init?

> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: VM: do_try_to_free_memory failed for XXXX, 2.2.17, 2.2.18pre3"
• Previous message: David Weinehall: "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: Harald Welte: "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