Subject: Re: Any resolution for LKM issues?
To: Darren Reed <darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au>
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <ignatios@cs.uni-bonn.de>
List: tech-kern
Date: 03/17/2001 15:50:32
--Pk6IbRAofICFmK5e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 01:47:36AM +1100, Darren Reed wrote:
> In some email I received from Ignatios Souvatzis, sie wrote:
> >=20
> > One problem though: this only works for base kernel calls... inter-LKM =
calls
> > will still potentially need long branches.
>=20
> At present it is only possible for one-way dependencies to exist for LKM
> calls.  When you do that, you need to supply a complete new symbol table,
> not that for the kernel, so I can't see why the inter-LKM calls would be
> treated in a special way by the loader.

They're at a potentially long distance from each other.
	-is

--Pk6IbRAofICFmK5e
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQEVAgUBOrN5XjCn4om+4LhpAQHdCwf+IddwCjJXgDNJ6EDGi9M4JQkniPzUTeA3
aWXLinfrtoKYTC2xKtsD4/2InSPUe3uAFoUIEo3OU95jUse9sWZ+hSODPixrt2kK
28WNRtZG7nmY/uVx5agR84kOmAg8zEjnjEp2QQg4tanNxk1r070doXDA5u7QQwjP
+jtzsHTKtHlXYzjX66lR4QsYyhzfc/taWpLneRBh8491ljvFsZoRKFQhf3he3MEP
Fn4xLQCiPniF0aXt3mZ5MOxpQoUvFX185yOH6mb645acMk5bIHE8gIl2R0KGsNl3
cwr6hqVFnoeoFs+gHHfR3NQ0MJX29UQGhT42+QZnvstmOwdKjbIhRQ==
=KOkv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Pk6IbRAofICFmK5e--