From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Bird Subject: Re: Recommendation for activating a deferred module init in the kernel Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:58:57 -0700 Message-ID: <485A9E61.6060707@am.sony.com> References: <48580116.9070504@am.sony.com> <4858A659.8030502@codefidence.com> <485932F0.5050108@am.sony.com> <4859ECF3.3000500@codefidence.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4859ECF3.3000500@codefidence.com> Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Gilad Ben-Yossef Cc: linux-embedded Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > Well, seeing as both modprobe and a minimal shell are part of busybox > which is included in over 90%+ of Linux based embedded systems and that > the script is trivial, not to mention that you can just have the > application call modprobe directly, just as it will be calling ioctl() > in your case, thereby negating the need for both script and shell at > all, I do believe that complexity wise my solution still has some merit. I agree. When you say "have the application call modprobe directly", I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you talking about a call to the kernel (a syscall) or a library function? The kernel has the syscall sys_init_module(), which I'm considering using. Is there some mobprobe library call that might make sense to use? Thanks for the feedback. -- Tim ============================= Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Corporation of America =============================