From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from oss.sgi.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g3D0RS8d030613 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:27:28 -0700 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g3D0RSU4030612 for linux-mips-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:27:28 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: oss.sgi.com: majordomo set sender to owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com using -f Received: from nevyn.them.org (mail@NEVYN.RES.CMU.EDU [128.2.145.6]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g3D0RN8d030609 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:27:23 -0700 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16wBOM-0003ev-00; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:27:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:27:46 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "Bradley D. LaRonde" Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , "MIPS/Linux List (SGI)" Subject: Re: Can modules be stripped? Message-ID: <20020412202746.A14017@nevyn.them.org> References: <012f01c1e250$c93fb0a0$4c00a8c0@prefect> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <012f01c1e250$c93fb0a0$4c00a8c0@prefect> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 02:35:13PM -0400, Bradley D. LaRonde wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" > To: "Bradley D. LaRonde" > Cc: "MIPS/Linux List (SGI)" > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 2:05 PM > Subject: Re: Can modules be stripped? > > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Bradley D. LaRonde wrote: > > > > > OK, you can't strip kernel modules (news to me, then again how often do > I > > > use modules?), but it can't be because they "are relocatables". I > routinely > > > strip libraries without problem, and those are relocatables too. > > > > What kind of libraries? Shared libraries are shared objects and not > > relocatables. > > Oh, oops. :-P Now I see what you mean. I confused shared object > w/relocatable. My bad. > > Did I know that kernel modules were "object files" i.e. relocatables. Yes. > But I've always referred to them as object files (.o), not relocatables, > hence the confusion. > > Which brings up an interesting question - why doesn't the kernel use .so > files for modules? If you're really curious, compare the gunk in insmod (quite a bit) with the gunk in ld.so (unspeakable). Shared libraries are a great deal more complicated than modules need to be. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer