| To: | devfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: using modules +/- CONFIG_DEVFS_FS |
| From: | Robert Manchester <rmanches@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:30:05 -0700 |
| In-reply-to: | <20010412170947.T74774@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from mee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 05:09:47PM -0700 |
| References: | <20010412223023.9BB6E7288@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010413005658I.siemer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010412162915.A7239@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010412170947.T74774@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-devfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
* Jeremy Brown (mee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) [010412 17:12]: > Of course, this whole problem goes away if your driver is open-source. :) Not really. The reason I would like to have a binary module is so my users don't have to know how to compile it. So many people have problems getting the right header files, compiler, etc, that it is easier for them if everything just works. Distributing the module as a binary doesn't mean that I don't want to distribute the source code with it, I just want to minimize the user from screwing up and ultimately being turned off from running my code because it is too hard to install. another reason would be I want to run two 2.4.3 kernels one with devfs and one without devfs using the same modules for both kernels. -rob |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: using modules +/- CONFIG_DEVFS_FS, Jeremy Brown |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: using modules +/- CONFIG_DEVFS_FS, Richard Gooch |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: using modules +/- CONFIG_DEVFS_FS, Jeremy Brown |
| Next by Thread: | Re: using modules +/- CONFIG_DEVFS_FS, Richard Gooch |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |