Messages in this thread | | | From | Darren Reed <> | Subject | Re: useful LKM? | Date | Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:51:12 +1000 (EST) |
| |
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 ?
| |