Question on device driver ?

[P Shetty]

Hi to All,

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
..exe file in to the Kernel ?

 

[Jack Klein]

Hi to All,

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
.exe file in to the Kernel ?

This is not a C language question, it is a Linux operating system
question. Ask in one of the groups.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Hi to All,

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
.exe file in to the Kernel ?

This is not a C language question, it is a Linux operating system
question. Ask in one of the news:comp.os.linux.development.* groups.

Actually, it's not really a question at all, in any meaningful sense of
the word. It is pretty much equivalent to:

Why do dogs have 10 legs?

 

[P Shetty]

I don't understand what you mean by that!

Does no one here at all write device drivers ?!?!?!?

Hi to All,

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
.exe file in to the Kernel ?

This is not a C language question, it is a Linux operating system
question. Ask in one of the news:comp.os.linux.development.* groups.

Actually, it's not really a question at all, in any meaningful sense of
the word. It is pretty much equivalent to:

Why do dogs have 10 legs?

 

[gw7rib]

Does no one here at all write device drivers ?!?!?!?

Probably some people here do. However, they don't talk about it here -
they talk aboput it in newsgroups relating to their operating systems.
Jack has pointed some suitable ones out for you. Here, people just
talk about the standard C language. And moan about people who put
their replies in front of the text they are replying to.

 

[runner]

Hi to All,

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
.exe file in to the Kernel ?

EXEs are "stand alone" units, applications. They
run at a higher level with respect to the Kernel.
EXEs have a "main" function, OBJs may not have
one. OBJs are pieces of code. Being pieces of
code they are well suited to be used as extensions
for different kind of cores (kernels being one)

 

[Walter Roberson]

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
.exe file in to the Kernel ?

By definition, an operating system kernel is a single program.
(Though QNX and Plan9 might fudge on that definition.)

You are proposing to add additional *programs*, rather than
to add additional *routines*.

Besides, Linux doesn't use .exe files for its programs -- .exe files
are Windows (or some other operating systems, such as VMS.)

 

[Gordon Burditt]

I don't understand what you mean by that!

Does no one here at all write device drivers ?!?!?!?

It's off-topic for this group. Some people in this group may raise
pit bulls, but that's off-topic too. Device drivers are system-specific.
There are many C implementations that don't use *.obj or *.exe files
at all. I thought Linux was one of these.

Hi to All,

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
.exe file in to the Kernel ?

 

[Tor Rustad]

Hi to All,

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
.exe file in to the Kernel ?

You can view the kernel as a single C program executing in a
freestanding environment, where the device drivers interface the
hardware for it.


The drivers need to handle hardware, service interrupts, there is no
time for waiting for some task manager, or wasting time on process
swapping...


In kernel space, there is only one program executing, and users like to
be able to install new drivers, without being forced to re-boot or
re-compile their system.

So, having dynamically loadable kernel modules, is a major advantage.

 

[CBFalconer]

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file
[module] not .exe file in to the Kernel ?

EXEs are "stand alone" units, applications. They run at a higher
level with respect to the Kernel. EXEs have a "main" function,
OBJs may not have one. OBJs are pieces of code. Being pieces of
code they are well suited to be used as extensions for different
kind of cores (kernels being one)

Both EXE and OBJ files are peculiar to specific systems, mostly
Windoze, and are thus firmly off topic on c.l.c.

 

[runner]

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file
[module] not .exe file in to the Kernel ?

EXEs are "stand alone" units, applications. They run at a higher
level with respect to the Kernel. EXEs have a "main" function,
OBJs may not have one. OBJs are pieces of code. Being pieces of
code they are well suited to be used as extensions for different
kind of cores (kernels being one)

Both EXE and OBJ files are peculiar to specific systems, mostly
Windoze, and are thus firmly off topic on c.l.c.

If the OP had a clear idea of the differences bewteen
executables and object code in general, he/she wouldn't
have any problem in answering to his/her own question.
Such a difference, i guess, should still belong to comp.lang.C.

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Probably some people here do. However, they don't talk about it here -
they talk aboput it in newsgroups relating to their operating systems.
Jack has pointed some suitable ones out for you. Here, people just
talk about the standard C language. And moan about people who put
their replies in front of the text they are replying to.

I did.
on a pdp 7 18 bit 8K computer,pdp 11-3, arc310, bbc_b , xt, at, pentium ,
in assembler,fortran, basic, c and(reluctantly) in c++(486 and higher).
And I am happy to forget about most of them.
But that is totally system dependent, and as such of course not portable.
As long as you work on only 1 system, read manuals, search for
examples of drivers, and dont count on much support of this newsgroup.
Try to find newsgroups closer to your platform, because it is impossible
to advise you on a general newsgroup.

 

[Flash Gordon]

runner wrote, On 17/09/07 01:19:

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file
[module] not .exe file in to the Kernel ?
EXEs are "stand alone" units, applications. They run at a higher
level with respect to the Kernel. EXEs have a "main" function,
OBJs may not have one. OBJs are pieces of code. Being pieces of
code they are well suited to be used as extensions for different
kind of cores (kernels being one)

Both EXE and OBJ files are peculiar to specific systems, mostly
Windoze, and are thus firmly off topic on c.l.c.

If the OP had a clear idea of the differences bewteen
executables and object code in general, he/she wouldn't
have any problem in answering to his/her own question.

Possibly true.

Such a difference, i guess, should still belong to comp.lang.C.

I definitely disagree with this. It is no more to do with C than it is
Fortran, Pascal or many other language. Either a more general group than
comp.lang.c would be appropriate if discussing general principals or a
group dedicated to the specific target if talking about a specific
target. Groups of both types exist for good reasons.

 

[runner]

runner wrote, On 17/09/07 01:19:

runner wrote:

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file
[module] not .exe file in to the Kernel ?
EXEs are "stand alone" units, applications. They run at a higher
level with respect to the Kernel. EXEs have a "main" function,
OBJs may not have one. OBJs are pieces of code. Being pieces of
code they are well suited to be used as extensions for different
kind of cores (kernels being one)
Both EXE and OBJ files are peculiar to specific systems, mostly
Windoze, and are thus firmly off topic on c.l.c.

If the OP had a clear idea of the differences bewteen
executables and object code in general, he/she wouldn't
have any problem in answering to his/her own question.

Possibly true.

Such a difference, i guess, should still belong to comp.lang.C.

I definitely disagree with this. It is no more to do with C than it is
Fortran, Pascal or many other language. Either a more general group than
comp.lang.c would be appropriate if discussing general principals or a
group dedicated to the specific target if talking about a specific
target. Groups of both types exist for good reasons.

If an OP cannot tell the difference between a couple of
concepts (because that's what he/she's looking for), it would
be harder for him/her to find the right place to ask the question.

 

[Flash Gordon]

runner wrote, On 17/09/07 21:58:
Please don't quote signatures, the bit typically after the "-- " unless
you are actually commenting on them.

If an OP cannot tell the difference between a couple of
concepts (because that's what he/she's looking for), it would
be harder for him/her to find the right place to ask the question.

So? Are you claiming you don't know the difference between the concepts
and so find it hard to find the correct place as well? Someone that does
not know anything about string theory might find it harder to find the
right place to ask, it does not make that topical here either. In any
case, at least one person did suggest where the question would be more
appropriate.

 

[runner]

So? Are you claiming you don't know the difference between the concepts
and so find it hard to find the correct place as well? Someone that does
not know anything about string theory might find it harder to find the
right place to ask,
Ok

it does not make that topical here either.

I never said it does. I just dropped the "Is It Off Topic?"
thing because i didn't want to start another long thread
about what is off topic and what is not.

Executables and object code are general concepts
belonging to several programming languages.
Loops are general concepts belonging to several
programming languages, but they are not off topic.

In any
case, at least one person did suggest where the question would be more
appropriate.

I saw that.

--

 

[Kenneth Brody]

I don't understand what you mean by that!

Does no one here at all write device drivers ?!?!?!?

[...]

I did, long ago. However, device drivers are, by there very nature,
very platform-specific. And, as such, any discussion about how to
write a device driver belongs in a group devoted to programming on
that platform.

As someone else pointed out, there is an enture tree of such groups
under comp.os.linux.development.

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file
[module] not .exe file in to the Kernel ?

And you'll probably get better answers if you use the proper
terminology. I don't believe that Linux use ".obj" and ".exe"
files. (Or, at least, it doesn't call them by those names.)

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:[email protected]>

 

[Flash Gordon]

runner wrote, On 18/09/07 00:56:

Ok

OK is not an answer to the question.

I never said it does. I just dropped the "Is It Off Topic?"
thing because i didn't want to start another long thread
about what is off topic and what is not.

You said, "Such a difference, i guess, should still belong to
comp.lang.C." This reads like a claim that you think it is topical and
is certainly very different from "Is It Off Topic?" which is a question.

Executables and object code are general concepts
belonging to several programming languages.
Loops are general concepts belonging to several
programming languages, but they are not off topic.

Only the subset of possible loop constructs supported by the C language
are topical here. Executable and object files are not topical here.
Never heard of C interpreters?

I saw that.

So did you not just accept it when it was pointed out to you that it is
off topic here?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

runner wrote, On 18/09/07 00:56:

OK is not an answer to the question.

Rest of drivel - deleted.

Just how long has it been since you've seen the sun or smelled a flower?

I suggest you look into it - getting a life and all that.

 

[runner]

runner wrote, On 18/09/07 00:56:

OK is not an answer to the question.

You replied to your own question and i simply stated
that your answer is a good one.

You said, "Such a difference, i guess, should still belong to
comp.lang.C." This reads like a claim that you think it is topical and
is certainly very different from "Is It Off Topic?" which is a question.

I'm not so haughty to make any claim. I said, it "should still
belong" and i didn't say, it "**definitely** belongs". (See also
"i guess")

Only the subset of possible loop constructs supported by the C language
are topical here. Executable and object files are not topical here.

The next time i will get an "index" of a C Language reference.

Never heard of C interpreters?

What should i say !? You're striking.

So did you not just accept it when it was pointed out to you that it is
off topic here?

It's not a matter of accepting.

1) I gave my reply to the OP.
2) It was pointed out that "Executables & Co." were off topic.
3) I had the impression that talking about Device Drivers
were definitely off topic but talking about "Ex & Co."
might still be tolerated *every now and then* .

I'm not expecting that "Ex & Co." will become topical here,
and i just couldn't care less.