> Juha Nurmela wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> >
> > > Actually... Loader passes a string. It seems the kldcode is passing
> > > argv[]. Juha, you sure you have they both working the same way (from
> > > a module's perspective)?
> >
> > It's splatted together, b
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Don't forget, there are zero or more modules per file. Which one gets the
> arguments? Coda (for example) is structured so that it has two modules, one
> device (codadev) and one vfs (coda).
Yes, the naming 'module_get_file_argstr()' had the _file_ for
> Juha Nurmela wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> >
> > > Actually... Loader passes a string. It seems the kldcode is passing
> > > argv[]. Juha, you sure you have they both working the same way (from
> > > a module's perspective)?
> >
> > It's splatted together,
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> >
> > Don't forget, there are zero or more modules per file. Which one gets the
> > arguments? Coda (for example) is structured so that it has two modules, on
e
> > device (codadev) and one vfs (coda).
>
> It seems to me that the one who gets
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Don't forget, there are zero or more modules per file. Which one gets the
> arguments? Coda (for example) is structured so that it has two modules, one
> device (codadev) and one vfs (coda).
Yes, the naming 'module_get_file_argstr()' had the _file_ for
Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> Don't forget, there are zero or more modules per file. Which one gets the
> arguments? Coda (for example) is structured so that it has two modules, one
> device (codadev) and one vfs (coda).
It seems to me that the one who gets the arguments is the one who
searches for it.
Juha Nurmela wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
>
> > Actually... Loader passes a string. It seems the kldcode is passing
> > argv[]. Juha, you sure you have they both working the same way (from
> > a module's perspective)?
>
> It's splatted together, by just putting ' ' b
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
>
> assuming we are making it at all, the less pain. It provides a way
> of getting parameters that is compatible with what is already
> possible with loader (ie, the module need not differentiate between
> it's method of loading). The code is working and ready.
Actuall
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Actually... Loader passes a string. It seems the kldcode is passing
> argv[]. Juha, you sure you have they both working the same way (from
> a module's perspective)?
It's splatted together, by just putting ' ' between words,
somewhere in there. Sea
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> >
> > Don't forget, there are zero or more modules per file. Which one gets the
> > arguments? Coda (for example) is structured so that it has two modules, on
e
> > device (codadev) and one vfs (coda).
>
> It seems to me that the one who gets
Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> Don't forget, there are zero or more modules per file. Which one gets the
> arguments? Coda (for example) is structured so that it has two modules, one
> device (codadev) and one vfs (coda).
It seems to me that the one who gets the arguments is the one who
searches for it
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Actually... Loader passes a string. It seems the kldcode is passing
> argv[]. Juha, you sure you have they both working the same way (from
> a module's perspective)?
It's splatted together, by just putting ' ' between words,
somewhere in there. Sear
Juha Nurmela wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
>
> > Actually... Loader passes a string. It seems the kldcode is passing
> > argv[]. Juha, you sure you have they both working the same way (from
> > a module's perspective)?
>
> It's splatted together, by just putting ' '
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
>
> assuming we are making it at all, the less pain. It provides a way
> of getting parameters that is compatible with what is already
> possible with loader (ie, the module need not differentiate between
> it's method of loading). The code is working and ready.
Actually
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Warner Losh wrote:
> >
> > In message <37a5c680.3ca1d...@newsguy.com> "Daniel C. Sobral" writes:
> > : Modules are not just drivers. Forget about drivers, and try again.
> > : :-)
> >
> > But the generic mechanism extends beyond just drivers :-)
>
>
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Warner Losh wrote:
> >
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Daniel C. Sobral" writes:
> > : Modules are not just drivers. Forget about drivers, and try again.
> > : :-)
> >
> > But the generic mechanism extends beyond just drivers :-)
>
> Ah, I reca
Warner Losh wrote:
>
> In message <37a5c680.3ca1d...@newsguy.com> "Daniel C. Sobral" writes:
> : Modules are not just drivers. Forget about drivers, and try again.
> : :-)
>
> But the generic mechanism extends beyond just drivers :-)
Ah, I recall now. Something similar to the way X works, with a
In message <37a5c680.3ca1d...@newsguy.com> "Daniel C. Sobral" writes:
: Modules are not just drivers. Forget about drivers, and try again.
: :-)
But the generic mechanism extends beyond just drivers :-)
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers"
Warner Losh wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Daniel C. Sobral" writes:
> : Modules are not just drivers. Forget about drivers, and try again.
> : :-)
>
> But the generic mechanism extends beyond just drivers :-)
Ah, I recall now. Something similar to the way X works, with all the
info
Warner Losh wrote:
>
> In message
> Juha Nurmela writes:
> : Yes, but (this might be a trademark ;) commonly the arguments would
> : be used during the sysinit->attach, and at that time sysctl has not yet
> : been able to change anything. Use of sysctl would require a sidestep
> : from attach an
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Daniel C. Sobral" writes:
: Modules are not just drivers. Forget about drivers, and try again.
: :-)
But the generic mechanism extends beyond just drivers :-)
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of
Warner Losh wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Juha
>Nurmela writes:
> : Yes, but (this might be a trademark ;) commonly the arguments would
> : be used during the sysinit->attach, and at that time sysctl has not yet
> : been able to change anything. Use of sysctl would require a sidestep
On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 1999, Juha Nurmela wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes it would be handy to pass a commandline
> > to a kld, preloaded modules already support
> > arguments. kldload(2) unfortunately has only
> > the pathname.ko argument.
>
>Is this really a pr
On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 1999, Juha Nurmela wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes it would be handy to pass a commandline
> > to a kld, preloaded modules already support
> > arguments. kldload(2) unfortunately has only
> > the pathname.ko argument.
>
>Is this really a p
In message Juha
Nurmela writes:
: Yes, but (this might be a trademark ;) commonly the arguments would
: be used during the sysinit->attach, and at that time sysctl has not yet
: been able to change anything. Use of sysctl would require a sidestep
: from attach and later continuation with a sysctl
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Juha Nurmela
writes:
: Yes, but (this might be a trademark ;) commonly the arguments would
: be used during the sysinit->attach, and at that time sysctl has not yet
: been able to change anything. Use of sysctl would require a sidestep
: from attach and later contin
On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 1999, Juha Nurmela wrote:
> > Sometimes it would be handy to pass a commandline
> > to a kld, preloaded modules already support
> > arguments. kldload(2) unfortunately has only
> > the pathname.ko argument.
>
>Is this really a prob
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999, Juha Nurmela wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Sometimes it would be handy to pass a commandline
> to a kld, preloaded modules already support
> arguments. kldload(2) unfortunately has only
> the pathname.ko argument.
Is this really a problem? Can the administrator not use
sysctl i
On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 1999, Juha Nurmela wrote:
> > Sometimes it would be handy to pass a commandline
> > to a kld, preloaded modules already support
> > arguments. kldload(2) unfortunately has only
> > the pathname.ko argument.
>
>Is this really a pro
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999, Juha Nurmela wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Sometimes it would be handy to pass a commandline
> to a kld, preloaded modules already support
> arguments. kldload(2) unfortunately has only
> the pathname.ko argument.
Is this really a problem? Can the administrator not use
sysctl
30 matches
Mail list logo
