On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 09:46:11AM -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
> The one mistake I think we have is that LKM's are special.  IMO, there
> should be nothing special about a LKM.  It should use the exact same
> services to make itself to the kernel as a static module built into a
> monolithic kernel.

LKMs *are* special. You want to reduce the impact of kernel options for
modules as much as possible. When an option triggers inlining of
certain functions, that's (often) fine for a statically compiled kernel.
For a module, it introduces hidden dependencies on options and that's
often very problematic. It also means a lot of decisions have to be made
more careful, since the kernel now has an ABI which might be worse to
preserver.

Joerg