monoholitic, hybrid or not monoholitic?

monoholitic, hybrid or not monoholitic?

[Patrick Kiwitter- Mailinglist]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

hello world,

i've invested a couple of hours to find a correct description of the
linux kernel achritecture. most books or litretures (in general) are
talking about a monoholitic kernel (incl. linux kernel development -
robert love and understanding the linux kernel - oreilly). i also asked
google an read the kernel.org faq.

the kernel were mostly descripted as monoholitic. but some sources means
that the linux kernel is not really monoholitic because of the feature
of loading kernel modules. some pages are talking about a "hybrid
kernel" which means that the kernel is a glue one, a little bit of
monoholitic and a little bit not.

so i would like to receive detailed information where i can read a
correct description of course you can also post your comments here (if
allowed). by the way, yes i've read the "tanenbaum" reffering monoholitc.

thanks a lot in advanced,
patrick

- --
.O.
..O   http://www.catb.org/hacker-emblem/
OOO

Administrator of http://www.devilcode.de - the developers community
Developer for http://www.lbsdde.de - the localized BSD project
chaos computer club http://www.ccc.de - cable salad is healthy

- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT d+ dx d s--:-- a-- C+++ UL+++(U-) P+++ L+++
E--- W+++ N++ w--- !O++ >V >Y+ b++(+++) h!(*)
- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBSCcdDHDJZHMNHXYRApP/AKCI8oXZHJVzyr261W+/fWYTCy1HwwCeJZFF
8ugaYwcP3sSCeENnSust4TA=
=YKHH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: monoholitic, hybrid or not monoholitic?

[Luca Ferroni]

Il Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:27:25 +0200,  Patrick Kiwitter- Mailinglist <ccc@devilcode.de> ha scritto:

> the kernel were mostly descripted as monoholitic. but some sources means
> that the linux kernel is not really monoholitic because of the feature
> of loading kernel modules. some pages are talking about a "hybrid
> kernel" which means that the kernel is a glue one, a little bit of
> monoholitic and a little bit not.
> 

I think Linux kernel should be considered monoholitic anyway,
because, even it can load kernel modules, they execute themselves
in kernel privileged space.
You can compile some kernel parts as modules, 
so they belong to the Linux core, the only difference is that they
are loaded on demand implying all benefits and disadvantages we know.

Bye
Luca

-- 
----------------------------------------
They'll never steal us our .... FREEDOM!!!
Luca Ferroni
ICQ #317977679
www.cs.unibo.it/~fferroni/
----------------------------------------

Re: monoholitic, hybrid or not monoholitic?

[Matt Kavanagh]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 01:27:25PM +0200, Patrick Kiwitter- Mailinglist wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> hello world,
> 
> i've invested a couple of hours to find a correct description of the
> linux kernel achritecture. most books or litretures (in general) are
> talking about a monoholitic kernel (incl. linux kernel development -
> robert love and understanding the linux kernel - oreilly). i also asked
> google an read the kernel.org faq.
> 
> the kernel were mostly descripted as monoholitic. but some sources means
> that the linux kernel is not really monoholitic because of the feature
> of loading kernel modules. some pages are talking about a "hybrid
> kernel" which means that the kernel is a glue one, a little bit of
> monoholitic and a little bit not.
> 
> so i would like to receive detailed information where i can read a
> correct description of course you can also post your comments here (if
> allowed). by the way, yes i've read the "tanenbaum" reffering monoholitc.
> 
> thanks a lot in advanced,
> patrick
> 
I'd tend towards monolithic because the modules (as mentioned) run in kernel
space; but it's not a cookie-cutter case. Things are implemented in userspace
that provide functionality normally included in the kernel; udev springs to
mind, even if it is not the predominant solution.

Re: monoholitic, hybrid or not monoholitic?

[Tommy Reynolds]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2312 bytes --]

Uttered Matt Kavanagh <matthew@teh.ath.cx>, spake thus:

> > the kernel were mostly descripted as monoholitic. but some sources means
> > that the linux kernel is not really monoholitic because of the feature
> > of loading kernel modules.
> I'd tend towards monolithic because the modules (as mentioned) run in kernel
> space.

These discussions are taking the wrong viewpoint.  The difference
between "monolithic" and "modular" kernels refers to their *internal*
organization, not a cosmetic *packaging* decision.

Linux is a monolithic kernel because one kernel routine can call
another directly, without intervention of any message passing
overhead.

Linux modules are simply packaging exercises that allow some code
_not_ originally linked into the kernel image to be grafted into an
executing kernel image.  Once installed, kernel modules can reference
other kernel resources with, again, a straight subroutine reference
without any message passing intervention.

All else is quibbling about the color of the ribbon used to wrap up
the module code ;-)

HTH.
-- 
-- 
.---------------------------------+----------------------------------------.
| Tommy Reynolds                  | Email: <Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com>  |
| P O Box 62                      | Phone: +1.256.227.1839                 |
| Danville, AL 35619 USA          | Fax:   +1.256.350.5099                 |
| Sr. Software Devel/RHCE         | IM:    HisDivShadow                    |
+---------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                     Ask MegaCoder.com For Answers!                       |
'--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
-- 
-- 
.---------------------------------+----------------------------------------.
| Tommy Reynolds                  | Email: <Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com>  |
| P O Box 62                      | Phone: +1.256.227.1839                 |
| Danville, AL 35619 USA          | Fax:   +1.256.350.5099                 |
| Sr. Software Devel/RHCE         | IM:    HisDivShadow                    |
+---------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                     Ask MegaCoder.com For Answers!                       |
'--------------------------------------------------------------------------'

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: monoholitic, hybrid or not monoholitic?

[Kurt Wall]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 07:22:31PM -0500, Tommy Reynolds took 69 lines to write:

[mumble]

> All else is quibbling about the color of the ribbon used to wrap up
> the module code ;-)

Or what color to paint the bike shed.

Kurt
-- 
Whatever is not nailed down is mine.  What I can pry loose is not
nailed down.
	-- Collis P. Huntingdon

Re: monoholitic, hybrid or not monoholitic? [OT]

[Neil Brown]

On Wednesday September 15, matthew@teh.ath.cx wrote:
> I'd tend towards monolithic because the modules (as mentioned) run in kernel
> space; but it's not a cookie-cutter case. Things are implemented in userspace
> that provide functionality normally included in the kernel; udev springs to
> mind, even if it is not the predominant solution.

It is worth looking at the origin of the word "monolithic".

   mono -  prefix meaning one, singular, alone.
   lith -  rock
   -ic  -  suffix meaning like, or similar.

And given that
    Linux is Number One and it, like, ROCKS,
I guess monolithic must be the right term :-)

NeilBrown

(we now return you to regular programming)

Re: monoholitic, hybrid or not monoholitic? [OT]

[Matt Kavanagh]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 10:51:24AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
>    mono -  prefix meaning one, singular, alone.
>    lith -  rock
>    -ic  -  suffix meaning like, or similar.
> 
> And given that
>     Linux is Number One and it, like, ROCKS,
> I guess monolithic must be the right term :-)
I think stereolithic is more appropriate in this case; linux
is Number One, but it's Number One because of the huge array
of choices it gives you :)

(And, of course, ROCKS is plural :P)