content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE2: [OKS] Module removal
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:21:57 -0700
Message-ID: <8A098FDFC6EED94B872CA2033711F86F0EC115@orion.ariodata.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Thread-Topic: RE2: [OKS] Module removal
Thread-Index: AcIhPPHeyKy8lHtGT6uzDE+Vzju9ZQ==
From: "Michael Nguyen" <mnguyen@ariodata.com>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1177
Lines: 29

Hello,

> > 
> > The suggestion was made that kernel module removal be depreciated or
> > removed. I'd like to note that there are two common uses for this
> > capability, and the problems addressed by module removal should be
> > kept in mind. These are in addition to the PCMCIA issue raised.

I saw this mail flashes thru the reflector. It is worrying to know
that this great feature is on the discussion table for removal.

My humbly two cents, is that the Kernel Module is very much appreciative
in the Linux embedded development. We, in embedded development, write 
"Kernel Modules/Drivers" to run our hardware. The Kernel Module feature 
allows us to segregate the HW specific from the Linux, and it also
allows
us to upgrade the module code without reload of Linux. This approach is
very efficient for us in the embedded products.

I hope others can share this comment, and help keep this feature as is.

Reagards,
Michael.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/