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    [W:0.021 / U:0.184 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site