devfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: using modules +/- CONFIG_DEVFS_FS

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@miine.engr.sgi.com>; from mee@miine.engr.sgi.com on Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 05:09:47PM -0700
References: <20010412223023.9BB6E7288@lester.vmware.com> <20010413005658I.siemer@panorama.hadiko.de> <20010412162915.A7239@lester.vmware.com> <20010412170947.T74774@miine.engr.sgi.com>
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>