> Please distinguish between "cater to" and "support". If the kernel > didn't worry about supporting out-of-tree code, then why would there > be loadable module at all? Memory usage, flexibility, debugging. Module support was not added for external modules. - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- From: "Scott Preece" <sepreece@gmail.com>
- Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- References:
- [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- From: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
- Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
- Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- From: Christian Ehrhardt <lk@c--e.de>
- Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
- Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- From: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
- Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- From: "Scott Preece" <sepreece@gmail.com>
- [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- Prev by Date: Re: [BUGFIX]{PATCH] flush icache on ia64 take2
- Next by Date: Re: net/ipv4/inetpeer.c stack warnings
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- Index(es):
 |