From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <2e7c6abe12bb5d68300f93848ca9c7e5@plan9.escet.urjc.es> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] kernel modules From: Fco.J.Ballesteros In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-banzecsiiegijivdwjiayrtvgy" Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:38:06 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 84a555ec-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-banzecsiiegijivdwjiayrtvgy Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ok. So you'd turn my 128M machine into a, say, 100M machine. Not a big deal... given that we indeed need those extra Mbytes for devices. --upas-banzecsiiegijivdwjiayrtvgy Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by aquamar; Mon Nov 10 15:35:37 MET 2003 Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001) id 4C12619AF4; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:35:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.23.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 39C1619B1E; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:35:11 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001) id D5D6719AA7; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:34:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailwasher-b.lanl.gov (mailwasher.lanl.gov [192.16.0.25]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id DB89819AAC for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:34:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailrelay1.lanl.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailwasher-b.lanl.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10/(ccn-5)) with ESMTP id hAAEYV4N008476 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 07:34:31 -0700 Received: from ccs-mail.lanl.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay1.lanl.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10/(ccn-5)) with ESMTP id hAAEYVwl017398 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 07:34:31 -0700 Received: from maxroach.lanl.gov (maxroach.lanl.gov [128.165.250.187]) by ccs-mail.lanl.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10/(ccn-5)) with ESMTP id hAAEYUxd003127 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 07:34:30 -0700 From: ron minnich To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] kernel modules In-Reply-To: <2b7b451e1182a260aa2887e810b907f4@plan9.escet.urjc.es> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.35 Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 07:34:30 -0700 (MST) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,USER_AGENT_PINE version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Fco.J.Ballesteros wrote: > 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). my modules tree for my laptop, which is hardly complete, is 14MB. Other machines have 24 MB. The idea still might work, though. If modules can be avoided that is all to the good ... ron --upas-banzecsiiegijivdwjiayrtvgy--