Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > Tim Bird wrote: >> I agree. When you say "have the application call modprobe directly", >> I'm not sure I understand what you mean. > > I simply meant that you can fork and exec modprobe itself (or use > system() but that > would require a working shell). This would "save" the need for a > separate script and a shell.
Well, this would explain why I didn't follow your original point. I thought you were using the word "modprobe" as a placeholder for some other module-installation-related concept. In all my years of working with embedded Linux, I have never used modprobe in a target device. (And I avoid insmod whenever I can). Sorry for my confusion. > The only downside I see of calling the sys_init_module syscall directly > is that it > doesn't do any of the dependency tracking that modprobe does, so it's more > a insmod replacement then a modprobe one, but I doubt this matters at > all in an > embedded system anyway. It may just be my own blind spot, but I can't think of a good reason to do such dependency tracking in an embedded device. It is a sad state of affairs if the product developers don't know the module dependencies for their own products. > > Do people here think a shared library implementing modprobe would be > useful? Speaking from my own experience, not for embedded. -- Tim ============================= Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Corporation of America ============================= -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
