Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 11:56:04 +0100 From: Stefan Petri <petri@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> To: phk@critter.tfs.com Cc: peter@jhome.DIALix.COM, p.richards@elsevier.co.uk, bde@zeta.org.au, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-user@freefall.freebsd.org, phk@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Modularity vs overhead [cvs commit: src/lkm/gnufpu Makefile] Message-ID: <199512151056.LAA00802@achill.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> In-Reply-To: Poul-Henning Kamp's message of Fri, 15 Dec 1995 11:07:38 %2B0100 <6589.819022058@critter.tfs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > Will this make the kernel smaller? and/or faster? I see the danger > that the dynamic driver loading will so much overhead that we end up > with a kernel as big as e.g. S*laris 2.x ... Poul> It is a necessary step to get the kernel even more modular. Yes, but will that gain real functionality / performance, besides getting more-pleasntly-to-look-at sources? If I wanted a really fashionable modular self configuring plaug and play kernel, I would more probably go to Solaris or Bill Gates or whatever ... Stefan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512151056.LAA00802>