[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: core's decision on modular kernels
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Martin S. Weber wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 07:55:38AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
- A port's MONOLITHIC kernel should include features that
traditionally would have been present in a non-modular GENERIC
kernel, and it may or may not include "options MODULAR", at the
Huh? Would it be possible please to get a more detailed rationale
behind allowing "options MODULAR" in a MONOLITHIC kernel, if all
ports using modules already offer MODULAR and GENERIC?
The main difference between MODULAR and MONOLITHIC would be that
MONOLITHIC has built-in support for almost everything considered stable
and useful, whereas MODULAR might expect to load a lot of modules at run
time. MONOLITHIC might still not have absolutely everything built-in,
and "options MODULAR" allows it to load additional modules at run time,
if the portmaster decides that this would be useful.
I use a MONOLITHIC kernel with "options MODULAR" to allow loading of a
module that contains the root file system as an md(4) image.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
Main Index |
Thread Index |