From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans mailing list <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Message-ID: <20001125120657.A28417@cackle.proxima.alt.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [9fans] [dolecek@ics.muni.cz: Re: LKMs] Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 12:06:58 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3230ca92-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Interesting coincidence, this... I think I agree with Jaromír that debugging is a lot simpler, and with Presotto that a generic kernel matching the union of the needs of a large number of workstations is unlikely to be optimal in any other fashion. ----- Forwarded message from Jaromír Dolecek ----- From: Jaromír Dolecek Subject: Re: LKMs In-Reply-To: "from Al Snell at Nov 25, 2000 02:02:38 am" To: Al Snell Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:03:04 +0100 (CET) CC: NetBSD Kernel list X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)] Precedence: list Delivered-To: tech-kern@netbsd.org Al Snell wrote: > What is the intended future of LKMs? I see that there are changes afoot in > -current to try to enable emulations to be loaded as LKMs, but are there > any plans to try to actually move stuff out of the kernel and into LKMs > instead? There are some plans to revamp the thing, adding some advanced features as clean interdependencies, less memory wasting, correct symbol visibility etc. The linker would run in kernel, userland would then only upload the raw module.o file to kernel. However, the work is in very initial stage ATM. The definite plan is surely to have ~all loadable. The most immediate effect is that it eases debugging tremendously; obviously, it's nice even for user not to have to recompile kernel :) Jaromir -- Jaromir Dolecek http://www.ics.muni.cz/~dolecek/ @@@@ Wanna a real operating system ? Go and get NetBSD, damn! @@@@ ----- End forwarded message -----