Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Portable binary modules | Date | Sun, 05 Dec 1999 23:48:10 -0300 | From | Horst von Brand <> |
| |
"Kendall Bennett" <KendallB@scitechsoft.com> said:
[...]
> Every single problem that has been mentioned about Binary Portable > modules for the Linux kernel is solvable. For the case of SMP and UP > kernel modules, allow the developer the *option* of compiling the > binary module with or withour SMP support. If compiled with SMP > support, the module should still work on a UP kernel as the kernel > would provide dummy locking functions or the UP equivalents to the > driver. If compiled without SMP, the module would fail to load on SMP > kernels (with an error message to the system log).
The locking primitives are inlined for performance, and radically different in both cases. The UP kernel has a definite advantage speedwise by _not_ handling SMP locks. Your idea is to compile everything as SMP then?
> In many cases binary modules could easily be built as SMP compatible > without any real performance hit on the system. If there is a > performance hit, the developer can build both SMP and UP versions of > the modules.
And for large memory, and not. And for i386, i486, i586 and i686. And so on. Get real. -- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Viña del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |