[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How should this issue be handled, should it be taken to the Technical Ctte?



#include <hallo.h>
* Halil Demirezen [Sun, Feb 23 2003, 11:12:38PM]:
> how about lsmod ?

Heh? lsmod? Built-in drivers?

> > > Another question: is there any good way to collect the names of
> > > currently loaded drivers? I wish to have a list of drivers included in
> > > the running kernel (with the same names as corresponding modules) which
> > > have been loaded successfully. If there is anything in the kernel API, I
> > > must have missed it.
> > 
> > Not in general.  For each subsystem, it may be possible to enumerate
> > the loaded drivers.  For example, SCSI drivers can be found in /proc/scsi.

That is not reliable, I doubt that the directory names there match the
module names. Well, a shame. That is something I realy do not like in
Linux: the modules system is not a full-featured system with frozen ABI
which guarantees compatibility and assists the programmers and advanced
users. It is a cludge, hacked together with a weird concept. No wonder
that many hardware vendors are pissed and refuse to create more drivers.
No wonder that we have to waste lots of energy to work around this big
mess. Is it so complicated to set a strict policy saying: every new
driver that has been successfully loaded has to register itself in some
list in the kernel, and this list is available in proc, and it has to
match the module filename? Forcing this policy ~2 years ago would have
made our life easier.

Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
-- 
Die Ehe ist der Sieg der Hoffnung über die Vernunft.

Attachment: pgpS_lftzDhpW.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: