On Fri Mar 21, 2003 at 07:16:58PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 05:39:07PM +0200, Nikolay Y. Orlyuk wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 06:32:17PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > > > Excuse my stupid question, but I seem to have no time to do the > > > investigation by myself right now so I'd be glad to receive a brief > > > answer from someone who has the information. > > > > > > As far as I can see, kernel modules should be built along with the > > > kernel for the only reason of keeping their mutual interfaces in > > > sync, has a source file defining such an interface changed. Is > > > there currently no way to go further and affect a kernel module's > > > built-in features with kernel config file options, besides modifying > > > makefiles in /sys/modules? > > I think this isn't so. I have been already tried to compile some modules > > without compiling kernel and this trye has successful result, but without > > change options. > > I think modules must be build with same or less imports and same or more export to > > be correct > > for loading. > > Yeah, it's all right to compile modules w/o the kernel, but that's > not exactly what I was asking about. My question was whether "option > FOO" lines from a kernel configuration file could influence modules.
I'm pretty sure they do. A great example is IPFIREWALL_* options: if
they don't influence the module, I think we have a problem. ;)
A.
--
Advertisers, not governments, are the primary censors of media content
in the United States today.
- C. Edwin Baker
http://www.ad-mad.co.uk/quotes/freespeech.htm
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
