Messages in this thread | | | From | "Khimenko Victor" <> | Date | Sun, 7 Feb 1999 17:43:01 +0300 (MSK) | Subject | Re: proper place to discuss kernel 'bloatedness'? |
| |
In <19990206235524.08094@fireplug.net> Stuart Lynne (sl@fireplug.net) wrote: >> | > Couldn't the kernel be split up into a server kernel and workstation >> | > kernel? >> | And where would you split the kernel? What makes a linux machine a server is >> | not the kernel, but the various daemons SERVING some kind of service. The >> | kernel "merely" provides a medium for those daemons - networking, file >> | systems, access to hardware etc. >> +--->8 >> >> Most of the difference between "workstation" and "server" is parameter tuning, >> not kernel code. This is true even of NT, where (aside from bundled software) >> the primary difference is registry entries which tune various parameters. >> >> And most of the "kernel bloat" is device drivers. I can *almost* see some >> point in splitting off e.g. SCSI or sound trees --- except that every time I >> do something like that with my own code, I end up regretting it. It's one >> of those "nice in theory" things....
> I would suggest splitting the kernel source into that which might be > required to boot and that which is not required to boot and is easily > handled as a module.
How about devices required to boot but easily handled as a module ? Like module for handling my AIC-7890 ? "Required to boot" and "easily handled as a module" are not opposited ! NPU emulation -- required to boot and not easily handled as module AIC-7890 -- required to boot but easily handled as module procfs -- not required to boot but not easily handled as module sb16 -- not required to boot and easily handled as module All four variants are there in kernel just now :-)
> I.e. almost all block device drivers stay with the main kernel tar ball.
What for ?
> Almost all character devices and all network drivers could easily get moved > into a Linux Modules source tar ball that could have an independant (to the > kernel) life.
"Easily" ? Are you joking ? With moves like planned move of rename() from filesystem-level to VFS-level are forced to redesign all modules (AFS peoples are heppy to hear about this move, I know :-))) ! So if module will be saparated from main kernel this will become mantainance nightmare (like PCMCIA just now).
> Is there any compelling reason for being able to compile ethernet drivers > into the main kernel? They work fine as modules. Ditto for serial, isdn, > sound, etc.
Some peoples just hate modules and it's just easily to mantain consistency with current big tarball then with proposed scheme...
- 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/
| |