On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 08:33:01PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
   > 
   > On Oct 8, 2006, at 6:53 PM, matthew green wrote:
   > 
   > >i agree.  we should move away from link sets even tho they are really
   > >quite handy...
   > 
   > I am ok with keeping them around for kernel-private stuff, i.e. things  
   > that will never be able to load as an LKM.  But eventually, I'd like  
   > the "load as LKM" and "statically compiled into the kernel" code paths  
   > to be identical, including the invocation of init and fini routines.
   
   Agreed.  This is what I need them for.  The file system transactions are
   helper functions and will probably never be loadable as an LKM.


hmm?  almost all our file systems work as LKM's currently...