On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:16:36AM -0800, John Nemeth wrote: > } In addition to the generic information in the old lkm(4) page [...] > > Silly question, but why would it go in section 4? Section 4 is > for devices. module(4) doesn't represent any kind of device. Seems to > me that section 7 would be the best place.
lkm(4) ended up in (4) doubtless because of this: crw-r----- 1 root kmem 28, 0 Dec 27 2007 /dev/lkm and although there's some precedent for other kernel-related but non-syscall phenomena appearing in section 4, I agree that 7 is probably better. more important question: shouldn't /dev/lkm be tagged obsolete? -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
