Subject: Re: What's a "real" elf loader like ?
To: Christos Zoulas <email@example.com>
From: Thomas E. Spanjaard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/16/2006 21:22:33
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Jun 16, 3:50pm, email@example.com (Eric Haszlakiewicz) wrote:
> | I vaguely remember thinking that the solution to a lot of the symbol
> | collisions, at least when you're talking about common shared function that
> | two LKMs might need, is to make the LKM more fine grained. So, if you've
> | got the linux emul lkm, and a freebsd emul lkm, and they both use emul_find=
> | (),
> | rather than having emul_find() included in linux_lkm.o and freebsd_lkm.o,=
> | =20
> | you have a emul_lkm.o that gets loaded first. Of course, doing so only
> | really becomes feasable when you can do something as simple as a
> | echo "options COMPAT_LINUX" | config -b . - && make
> | to build any piece of the kernel.
> If you make them more fine-grained, then you can use the elf library dependency
> mechanism to load the modules...
It sounds very neat, but 'make them more fine-grained' is easier said
than done, I presume. Is there already a plan to achieve that, or should
the thread starter compile such a plan?
Thomas E. Spanjaard
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----