lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1997]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: useful LKM?
Date
In some mail I received from Jacques Gelinas, sie wrote
[...]
> By combining solution 2 and 3, we would be in a better shape, without
> inventing new APIs.

Option 1 you presented is the sort of thing you'd find in Solaris or
Windows NT - put there to make life easier for new developers and
future compatibility. The point here is, given its presence, you can
rewrite the kernel completely but not have to rewrite an LKM that interacts
with it (although I wouldn't count on it). There are other advantages too,
but they all cost something.

I think if you do combine 2 & 3, you do end up with a new API.

Has anyone actually quantified the difference in memory usage that
results in structures having different sizes due to compile-tiome
options ? And then observed how big that change is in reality to a
running system ?

How badly is a better system needed and does anyone want to pay the price ?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:40    [W:0.042 / U:0.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site