insmod uses syscall

[Chris Kottaridis]

Sounds like a good reason! I assumed there was some historic reason for
this.

Indeed , I am a bit red-faced to have started this thread now that I've
determined we shot ourselves in the foot on this one and busybox was a
mere victim.

Thanks

    Chris Kottaridis    (chriskot at quietwind.net)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 21:26 -0700, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 04:37:03PM -0700, Chris Kottaridis wrote:
> > However, I am still curious about why busybox is not calling
> > init_module directly, but rather calling it through syscall.
> 
> Because there is no guarantee that libc happens to have an
> init_module() function to call and thus people kept complaining
> that insmod/modprobe didn't work with their C library which had
> been built vs 2.4 kernel headers but though they later decided
> they wanted to run a 2.6 kernel without rebuilding their C lib.
> Thus instead of getting a perfectly sane ENOSYS they instead got
> an undefined symbol, and complained, and complained, till I did
> something about it, not because it was a busybox problem, but
> because I didn't want to hear any more people moaning about
> busybox being broken when in fact it wasn't....
> 
>  -Erik
> 
> --
> Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
> --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
>