"David A. Bandel" schrieb:
>
> Torsten Scheck wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> > > <h3>Objective ID # 2.5.4: Customizing a Kernel</h3>
> > > <p>Candidates should be able to customize a kernel for specific system
> > > requirements by patching, compiling, and editing configuration files as
> > > required. This objective includes being able to assess requirements for a
> > > kernel compile versus a kernel patch as well as build and configure kernel
> > > modules. </p>
> >
> > I've had no time to review level 2 objectives so far. :-(
> > And so I can't provide exam item now (maybe, while preparing
> > for level, I can create some for other forms or substitutes),
> > _but_ I have the time to ask:
> >
> > What does "kernel compile versus a kernel patch" mean?
> > Maybe: "kernel upgrade versus kernel patch" ?
> >
> > The current version of the objective suggests that you can
> > patch the kernel binary, so you don't have to compile the
> > kernel.
>
> No. You can't patch the binary. Normally, you can compile a kernel
> module for a kernel without recompiling the entire kernel, and still
> have it inserted and accepted by the kernel. You do have to have the
> kernel compiled to accept "foreign" modules. This is done by compiling
> with the kernel with the option Loadable module support --> Set version
> information on all module symbols, selected.
>
> Patching the kernel is different and is normally to add capabilities or
> upgrade the kernel without d/l the complete source.
Sorry, I've chosen the wrong words, I guess.
I know what you explained, but others may get it wrong,
when they read the objectives. Therefore my post.
Thanks anyway.
Torsten
--
This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list.
Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to leave the list.
