Subject: Re: What's a "real" elf loader like ?
To: Pavel Cahyna <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Quentin Garnier <email@example.com>
Date: 06/17/2006 17:27:57
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 04:54:59PM +0200, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 10:52:06AM +0200, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> > The kernel options description files could have stuff like this:
> > modular defattr foo
> > modular device bar
> > device baz
> > modular attach baz at fol with baz_fol
> > which would mark repectively the attributes foo, bar and baz_fol as
> > potentially modular. Then the user would have e.g.:
> > module baz* at fol?
> > which would have the module baz_fol.o created.
> In this example, "baz" itself is not modular? It has to be compiled
> If you had instead "modular device baz", you should be able to create
> modules baz.o and baz_fol.o, right?
Yes. The example was meant to underline the granularity. The side
effect of that is that it produces a lot of modules. However, each of
them is in turn very specific.
Dependency between modules would be at the attribute level too, of
Quentin Garnier - firstname.lastname@example.org - cube@NetBSD.org
"When I find the controls, I'll go where I like, I'll know where I want
to be, but maybe for now I'll stay right here on a silent sea."
KT Tunstall, Silent Sea, Eye to the Telescope, 2004.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----