From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261350AbVFJMVJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:21:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262371AbVFJMVJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:21:09 -0400 Received: from isilmar.linta.de ([213.239.214.66]:17319 "EHLO linta.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261350AbVFJMVH (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:21:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:21:05 +0200 From: Dominik Brodowski To: Steve Snyder Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: PCMCIA still advised as modules? Message-ID: <20050610122105.GA13931@isilmar.linta.de> Mail-Followup-To: Dominik Brodowski , Steve Snyder , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <200506100811.17631.swsnyder@insightbb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200506100811.17631.swsnyder@insightbb.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:11:17AM -0400, Steve Snyder wrote: > Back in the 2.4.x kernel days I was advised to build the PCMCIA-related > drivers (pcmcia_core, ds, yenta_socket) as modules. There were > supposedly problem with them being staticly built into the kernel. > > Is this still the case? Are there currently any drawbacks to having the > PCMCIA modules built into the kernel? At least from 2.6.13 on, it will be much easier if you have the PCMCIA "modules" built into the kernel, as you won't need userspace interaction any longer (except on old yenta_socket bridges during startup, but that's a different story). Therefore, I do not see any drawbacks to having the PCMCIA modules built into the kernel. Dominik