From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:26:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:26:48 -0500 Received: from expanse.dds.nl ([194.109.10.118]:8204 "EHLO expanse.dds.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:26:35 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:26:01 +0100 From: Ookhoi To: Michael Meissner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: The advantage of modules? Message-ID: <20010108192601.J3680@ookhoi.dds.nl> Reply-To: ookhoi@dds.nl In-Reply-To: <20010105225020.A1188@evaner.penguinpowered.com> <20010108114734.A11682@munchkin.spectacle-pond.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.14i In-Reply-To: <20010108114734.A11682@munchkin.spectacle-pond.org>; from meissner@spectacle-pond.org on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:47:34AM -0500 X-Uptime: 9:23pm up 45 days, 10:36, 37 users, load average: 0.20, 0.67, 1.07 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Michael, > On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 10:50:20PM -0600, Evan Thompson wrote: > > I'd like to know (I know, I'm being slightly off topic, while still > > staying on topic, so I'm on topic...er...yes) if there is any > > advantage, be it memory-wise or architectuarally wise, to use > > modules? > > > > I already know the obvious points of if you are creating a distro > > that it is usually good to make a very modular kernel for those > > wishing not to recompile their kernel, but I was wondering if there > > were any other advantages to using modules vs. making a monolithic > > kernel for a kernel to be used only on one machine (with no other > > hardware support at all)? > > A couple of thoughts: > > 1) A full kernel with everything compiled in might not fit on boot > media such as floppies, while modules allows you to not load stuff > that isn't needed to until after the main booting is accomplished. > > 2) There are several devices that have multiple drivers (such as > tulip, and old_tulip for example). Which particular driver works > depends on your exact particular hardware. If both of these > drivers are linked into the kernel, whatever the kernel chooses to > initialize first will talk to the device. > > 3) Having drivers as modules means that you can remove them and > reload them. When I was working in an office, I had one scsi > controller that was a different brand (Adaptec) than the main scsi > controller (TekRam), and I hung a disk in a removable chasis on the > scsi chain in addition to a tape driver and cd-rom. When I was > about to go home, I would copy all of the data to the disk, unmount > it, and then unload the scsi device driver. I would take the disk > out, and reload the scsi device driver to get the tape/cd-rom. I > would then take the disk to my home computer. I would reverse the > process when I came in the morning. You don't need modules for this to work. Ookhoi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/