From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by annwfn.erfurt.thur.de (8.9.3/8.9.2) with UUCP id VAA27206 for linux-mm@kvack.org; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 21:48:22 +0100 Received: from nibiru.pauls.erfurt.thur.de (uucp@localhost) by pauls.erfurt.thur.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with bsmtp id VAA04574 for linux-mm@kvack.org; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 21:38:32 +0100 Received: from nibiru.pauls.erfurt.thur.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nibiru.pauls.erfurt.thur.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02966 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 17:01:22 GMT Message-ID: <38776D61.56A4EC24@nibiru.pauls.erfurt.thur.de> Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 17:01:21 +0000 From: Enrico Weigelt Reply-To: weigelt@nibiru.pauls.erfurt.thur.de MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: bdflush Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: 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/