On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 09:06:03AM -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> 
> Anyway, I generally concur with Steven, I'd rather get to basic LKMs now
> and not get bogged down by over-engineering the project.  The real
> question is: does core@ agree, or are there still serious objections to
> LKMs in principle.  (It seems like the performance question is mostly
> answered, though some actual benchmarking would be useful.  Can't do
> that without actually implementing more LKMs though.)

What's really needed is an in-kernel loader.  At least two developers
have stepped up in the past and claimed to be in the midst of writing
one of those, but nothing's ever come of it.

I also question whether, without versioning of modules and without
inter-library dependencies, this will actually ever be particularly
useful.  Finally, I think it's important to retain the ability to
build a monolithic kernel for applications where the entire blob
must be verified -- *without* running a chain of dependencies and
hoping you got it right.

Thor