From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <8d01ecb6b7ce6b634f4ec375651a878f@plan9.escet.urjc.es> From: Fco.J.Ballesteros To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] kernel modules In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-maokbashokbxvmdglrvuzxquhf" Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:41:30 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 84b9e2c8-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-maokbashokbxvmdglrvuzxquhf Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit But then, isn't it reasonable to keep a 9embed kernel compiled with just a subset of devices for that sort of platforms? --upas-maokbashokbxvmdglrvuzxquhf Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by aquamar; Mon Nov 10 15:39:52 MET 2003 Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001) id 92B3E19AFE; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.4.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id D251019AA7; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:39:21 -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 60A0E19A32; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:38:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com (plan9.bell-labs.com [204.178.31.2]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id CDECE19A95 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:38:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] kernel modules From: Sape Mullender In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 09:38:18 -0500 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) > 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). It could be worth while in embedded systems using Plan 9... --upas-maokbashokbxvmdglrvuzxquhf--