On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:32:09 +0100
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

quoted text
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 10:25:15AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Getting the marker exports right is what is needed to avoid having an
> > unreliable parser and ending up with a reliable one.
> > 
> > Or would you rather someone loaded a JVM into kernel space so it was
> > "shipped with the kernel"
> 
> You're totall missing the point here.  We're talking about kernel internal
> interface, and the point for them has always been not to care about out
> of tree users.  There is no relation to anything involving a JVM here.

Of course there is Christoph.

If you have a system which generates and loads modules then they can't be
in tree (as they don't exist except transiently). On the other hand if it
outputs java byte codes then a JVM to process them can be in tree. It
would be a stupid solution to the problem but you appear to be objecting
to sane ones.

The system to create the dynamic modules could certainly be in-tree but to
argue that code dynamically created should be "in tree" already is a
bit silly really isn't it ?

A second way of point out your argument is totally and utterly bogus
would be the MODULE_ interface. The modutils are clearly out of tree
users.

So whats the difference between modutils and markers ? Would it suddenely
change if modutils developed modinfo --dump-markers ? 

Alan
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/