> Drivers are supposed to handle present hardware - if the hardware > is there - there should be a driver handling it as well. Thats not how things have worked historically. Thats not consistent with other modules either. > The argument for saving some memmory is nonapplicable becouse in > the case of expected usage in the future you have anyway to assume that > in this futere there will be sufficient memmory for it there. And then Rubbish > Could some one add this to the FAQ ... please! You got the letters in the wrong order. Your proposal is at best a Frequently Questioned Answer > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO... Keith Owens
- Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status /... Martin Dalecki
- Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status /... Alan Cox
- Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status /... Paul Jakma
- Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status /... Martin Mares
- Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Stat... Horst von Brand
- Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 ... Martin Mares
- Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Stat... Martin Dalecki
- Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status /... Wayne . Brown
- Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status /... Horst von Brand
- Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status /... David Feuer