From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Mar 30 18:27:30 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA06539
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:27:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA06534
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:27:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.8.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id SAA06086; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:27:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199703310227.SAA06086@root.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: dfr@nlsystems.com (Doug Rabson), current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: A new Kernel Module System 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 30 Mar 1997 13:45:31 MST."
             <199703302045.NAA08427@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:27:51 -0800
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.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project