Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:02:06 -0500 (EST)
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Andrew Boothman <andrew@cream.org>
Cc:        freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: A question about kernel modules
Message-ID:  <XFMail.20030310110206.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <3E69329B.2040803@cream.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On 08-Mar-2003 Andrew Boothman wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
> 
>>>The main point was that we get to load only one file, and have no
>>>CDROM access after that, except through drivers which must be
>>>present in the kernel.  I think that's still valid to say.
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Nope.  cdboot loads up a /boot/loader and you are free to load
>>whatever modules you want off the CD just as if you were booting
>>from a hard drive.  That said, I personally favor static kernels
>>and only use modules when I'm testing things.
>>
> 
> I guess this is really the nub of the question.
> 
> Why do you "personally favour" static kernels over modules?

Kernel debugging is much easier since gdb doesn't resolve symbols
in modules without jumping through hoops.  Also, optimizations from
kernel options (like not having INVARIANTS or WITNESS on) do not
affect modules.   Modules are compiled to the lowest common
denominator and thus aren't as optimized in some cases as the same
code in a static kernel.

-- 

John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20030310110206.jhb>