Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:36:56 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: Shimon@i-Connect.Net, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, julian@whistle.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com Subject: Re: Continual Education (was Re: A Desparate Plea) Message-ID: <199704301836.LAA02447@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199704300600.PAA26367@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Apr 30, 97 03:30:10 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> A relevant question. Most LKMs are loaded once and never unloaded; > these aren't a problem source. The LKM framework was a bit of a > kludge at the time, and has perhaps not been brought completely up to > snuff simply because it worked "well enough". Speaking as the appologist for the LKM code (I wrote the original)... Actually, it wants DEVFS to solve some of the sticky problems and hacks it would otherwise have to engage in. The ongoing "imminent arrival" of DEVFS has had at least something to do with it not being updated. It would also be a lot easier to do a general kernel loader shared between image activation and module loading if FreeBSD would go to ELF. That's been a minor factor. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704301836.LAA02447>