From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <2b7b451e1182a260aa2887e810b907f4@plan9.escet.urjc.es> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: Fco.J.Ballesteros MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [9fans] kernel modules Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:50:11 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 83e70510-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Maybe I'm wrong, because I'm kind of sleepy, but I think that you said that the plan was to add loadable module support and after that, maybe put usb (and perhaps others) into the kernel. I've been thinking about it and I think it's not a problem at all to have everything compiled inside the kernel. I know this does not include all allocated memory in use by the kernel, but 872411t + 1555144d + 108904b = 2536459 9pcdisk 2.5 Mbytes (say, 5 Mbytes while running) is a pretty low ammount of memory this days. Of course this does not account for fossil et al. Isn't it enought just to be able to power on/off the different devices? Even when they contend for a resource, we can shut down all but the one that we want. There's no need to load/unload them. Is the complexity added worth? For instance, my kernel is a 1.9% of the machine memory?? (maybe a 4% while running, but that's in a 128M machine, which is pretty low these days). I'd love to see this thing stay as simple as feasible; just had to say it.