lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Portable binary modules
Date
From
"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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site