Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 12:34:22PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>   
>> You're right that it needs to be possible to build static kernels.  I'd 
>> love a framework where the identical .o could be used either way. 
>>     
>
> As someone who used to rely pretty heavily on static Linux kernels to
> preserve his sanity while debugging, I'd like to say that if we're going
> to do it the Linux way, I *really* would not love such a framework.
>
> Linux implements symbol versioning on all symbols in a kernel with loadable
> module support by mangling their names in a way that makes it _extremely_
> difficult to see what's going on with the debugger, or with normal tools
> for looking at object files.  It would be nice to not make that mistake,
> which can also make it very difficult to see why the kernel fails to link
> at build time, if it does.
>
>   
I propose we *not* do it the Linux way.  Linux binary modules are
brain-dead.  Solaris is a *vastly* superior example to follow.

-- 
Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer
Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division,
General Dynamics C4 Systems
http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/
Phone: 951 325-2134  Fax: 951 325-2191