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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
