Re: [gentoo-user] kernel: built-in vs. module
begin quote On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 01:54:37 +0200 Juan Ángel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > As a module, you can load it and remove it as you please, but not if > it's builtin. Usually, drivers go as modules, and other features don't > (that's your choice). But if you need something (such as ext2 suport, > for example) available at boot time, before modules load, you must > build the code inside the kernel. -- IMPORTANT -- > But usually modules accept more parameters that the same code but > kernel builtin, so a point goes to modules. -- -- -- you may be tired, but here you got to the core of it, when using modules you can pass extra initialization data, and other configurations to a kernel, and you can remove a driver and reinsert it to see if that is the one being flaky for some reason. A very common misconception is that your machine is "safer" if you dont have modules and build it all in.. Forget that, simply not true for a default kernel. The only thing you gain from making items static is bloat, and problems when you wish to change or try another driver or configuration. //Spider -- begin .signature This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] kernel: built-in vs. module
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As a module, you can load it and remove it as you please, but not if it's builtin. Usually, drivers go as modules, and other features don't (that's your choice). But if you need something (such as ext2 suport, for example) available at boot time, before modules load, you must build the code inside the kernel. But usually modules accept more parameters that the same code but kernel builtin, so a point goes to modules. If you're thinking about the kernel builtin code to be faster as the modules, then you'd be wrong. They are the same code, but linked in a different way. I need to sleep, and I'm not making too much sense. I hope that it helped (at least that it didn't confuse you more). Cheers, - -- Juan Ángel PGP key on pgp.rediris.es (8FAF18B7) or search on http://www.rediris.es/cert/servicios/keyserver/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+8PvUaQjbS4+vGLcRAupdAJ9LQv09aQCDF3PfFlbVWQjHuQijkwCdEElV ClkawKxfddGtv25olYOJ/Ro= =Fc8L -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-user] kernel: built-in vs. module
Just my opinion, unless you change hardware a lot, I don't think there is an advantage. Some things though, like I2c support, you want as modules because you might not be sure which one your hardware supports and you can auto-detect it. > I've been using linux full time for about 6 months now, but I > haven't found anything on the pros and cons of compiling the > kernel with features built-in vs built as modules? What are > the advantages of either case? > > curious, > -chris > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] kernel: built-in vs. module
Probably, it's a matter of personal preference - like vi vs emacs . From what I see modules allow you to reduce the size of the kernel and let you load drivers, only if you need them. However, if a module needed for boot isn't built in you have to use an initrd to start the system. Personally, I build in what I need to boot (such as SCSI for disks) and then include the other SCSI drivers in the kernel. I put my network and some other drivers as modules. Sound is a module since I use ALSA. > I've been using linux full time for about 6 months now, but I haven't > found anything on the pros and cons of compiling the kernel with > features built-in vs built as modules? What are the advantages of either > case? > > curious, > -chris -- Brett I. Holcomb AKA Grunt <>< -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] kernel: built-in vs. module
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:38:59PM -0700, Chris Graves wrote: > I've been using linux full time for about 6 months now, but I haven't > found anything on the pros and cons of compiling the kernel with > features built-in vs built as modules? What are the advantages of either > case? Depends if you care about the size of your kernel, or if you want to use the features all the time. IE: I don't always use ntfs, so I feel that it's just taking up "space" in the kernel, but I want it available for when I do use NTFS. It also gives you flexibility if you change hardware around and need to get a new NIC driver, having everything compiled as a module (or setting it and running a quick "make modules modules_install" before swapping hardware) means you just modprobe the new driver and don't have to worry about recompiling everything. Recompiling everything as a module also gives you the ability to autoprobe for hardware, but that's more a distro maker thing I think. I'm sure there are far better reasons though :) alan -- Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://arcterex.net "There are only 3 real sports: bull-fighting, car racing and mountain climbing. All the others are mere games."-- Hemingway -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] kernel: built-in vs. module
I've been using linux full time for about 6 months now, but I haven't found anything on the pros and cons of compiling the kernel with features built-in vs built as modules? What are the advantages of either case? curious, -chris -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
