[openbeosnetteam] Re: Dynamic Modules!
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:13:59 CET (+0100)
> > And, don't kill me for that, but do we have to change the
> > "standard"
> > module names and add that '.so' suffix=3F Not that this is really
> > important... :-)
> Oh, didn't realise they don't need the .so - but that can/will be
> changed!
Thanks :-)
> > of its name) - if BONE or the net=5Fserver would do this, we
> > couldn't
> > write a networking stack at all, because you would have to kill
> > them
> > before.
> I'd rather that if we can actually use a card then we do. BTW, what
> does the
> last line mean?
That means, that if the net_server would automatically pick up all
unconfigured cards and set up an interface for them, they all would be
in use permanently.
So no other applications could access them (our net_server == other
apps in this case).
> > BTW AFAICT, we'd just have to move our modules to kernel modules to
> > compile and let run this thing completely in the kernel (of course
> > something would have to start the server, then). I guess this won't
> > change if we're keeping that coding style.
> I agree about the moving to kernel, but didn't follow the comment
> that
> followed!?
Low-level programming, no high-level functions, no C++, etc.
We are currently using mostly those functions that are also available
in the kernel, so the porting will be "easy".
Adios...
Axel.
Other related posts:
