On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 03:10:26PM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman wrote: > > I think you should use module_init() etc. right up front. If you insist, > > you could add a chapter on 2.2, but I do not see *any* point in > > supporting 2.2 in this document. > > the reason was the same as the conf.modules reason. people might see > it, and be confused because it might still be found in places. This is certainly a problem. However, I believe that trade-offs are worth it: if one or two people get confused on seeing an old source, they are likely to ask this list or whatever. However, making everyone read about it the first time they read this document will affect everyone rather than just the couple of people coming across the old form. > > > You can even write modules to replace the kernel's system calls, which > > > we'll do shortly. > > > > This is not a sensible thing to cover in this document IMO. > > jooc, how come? A number of reasons : o it's very ugly o it's unsafe o it's not something the typical module wants to do o it's not future proof o it has nasty gotchas for the beginner See also http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/#intercept I'm sure there is some better example you can get new module programemrs to try :) regards, john -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
