Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
GNU virtual private Ethernet
-- Dave Jones
Quote of the week
Posted Jan 5, 2007 3:01 UTC (Fri) by jd (guest, #26381)
My answer to that is fairly simple. In a correctly-designed system, any
given layer should be oblivious to the details of the layers above or
below. It needs to know how to communicate between layers efficiently,
but beyond that, the details are of no consequence.
All these sound to me like cases where you can have all the necessary
hooks built into a totally generic "one-size-fits-maul" kernel. If a hook
wants to be disabled, you have plenty of options. The slow-but-safe way
would be to have some modules that are just stubs that the hooks can use
instead of whatever external thing they'd look for. The faster, more
dangerous, insane, and therefore the way with the greatest geek quotient,
is to mark these hooks and no-op them out at runtime if they're not being
used. In a way, this is better because then you can't accidentally
compromise the configuration later on by loading/unloading one of the
Copyright © 2006, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds