Re: why is modprobe (and nothing else) exec()'d?
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 10:01:56AM -0400, Chris Swiedler wrote: > 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. But you can load a module before, "MOD_INC_USE_COUNT;" it and install a new oom_killer (or better: OOM-Handler) that suits your needs. You can even install one, which restores old behavior (just panic()) to be backward-BUG-compatible ;-) All you need, is to apply my patch[1]. It applies cleanly against test10-pre1 an test10-pre2. I'll soon provide an example module, which uses my OOM-killer API so install a new OOM killer. Regards Ingo Oeser [1] http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~ioe/oom_kill_api.patch -- Feel the power of the penguin - run [EMAIL PROTECTED] :x - 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/
RE: why is modprobe (and nothing else) exec()'d?
Ok, I should have thought of that ;-). I've never used modprobe directly myself, and had forgotten that was possible. Thanks to everyone who replied. chris - 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/
Re: why is modprobe (and nothing else) exec()'d?
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 10:01:56AM -0400, Chris Swiedler wrote: > Why is modprobe kept as a separate executable, when nothing else in the > kernel is (seems to be)? What is the advantage to keeping modprobe separate, modprobe is a userspace tool. It resolves dependencies based on a textfile called modules.dep and asks the kernel to load the modules in the apropriate order. > chris -- Live long and prosper - Harald Welte / [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.gnumonks.org GCS/E/IT d- s-: a-- C+++ UL$ P+++ L$ E--- W- N++ o? K- w--- O- M- V-- PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP++ t++ 5-- !X !R tv-- b+++ DI? !D G+ e* h+ r% y+(*) - 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/
Re: why is modprobe (and nothing else) exec()'d?
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/
Re: why is modprobe (and nothing else) exec()'d?
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:01:56 -0400, "Chris Swiedler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Why is modprobe kept as a separate executable, when nothing else in the >kernel is (seems to be)? modprobe is a user space tool, it can be used by hand at any time. It shares a lot of code with insmod and depmod, another pair of user space tools. It is not the only one, exec_usermodehelper() is a general routine and is used by baycom_epp as well (for /usr/sbin/eppfpga). - 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/
