* bdflush
@ 2000-01-08 17:01 Enrico Weigelt
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Enrico Weigelt @ 2000-01-08 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mm
hello,
i'm wondering why bdflush is really needed anymore ...
i've read somewhere, bdflush was invented in times, when linux didn't
have
kernel-threads. bdflush does an syscall which never returns ...
hmm... nice way to have a process in kernel space.
but now linux _has_ kernel threads. isn't it better to start an kernel
thread ?
i know, that bdflush configures something ... this could be done by an
kernel module.
aah.. (OT) question about kernmods. can an kernel module set it's status
to
autounload, even if it was loaded manually ?
(this would be good for configuration modules: if there's something to
configure
in the kernel, load an module with some params, which does this config
and
unloads itself when done - no need for huge config interfaces like
sysctl() ...)
bye,
enrico
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.nl.linux.org/Linux-MM/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2000-01-09 20:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2000-01-08 17:01 bdflush Enrico Weigelt
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox