Re: Kernel modules

[David Laight <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost>]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:07:16AM +0000, Andrew Doran wrote:
> 
> - The syscall case raises a question about compat code, because in some
>   places the compat code calls optional syscalls directly. We could either
>   go through the syscall table to get at optional features (call *sy_call),
>   or make compat code always depend on the optional features like sysvshm.
>   The latter is problematic because then we grow a conflict between
>   config(8) and the module dependencies so I think indirection is the way
>   to go here.

One problem here is that the compat code probably doesn't want to call
the sys_foo() function itself, but rather then next function down that
is executed once all the parameters are in kernel space.

I think that means that if sys_foo() is in an LKM, then compat_bar_sys_foo()
must also be in an LKM.  Then the LKM dependecies can be used to ensure
all the required functionality is present.

        David

-- 
David Laight: david%l8s.co.uk@localhost