Re: core's decision on modular kernels

[David Laight <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost>]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 08:09:58AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> 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
> >>   portmaster's discretion.
> >
> >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.

What is the difference between MONOLITHIC and MODULAR with 'built-in'
modules? And wouldn't the latter be a better aim??

        David

-- 
David Laight: david%l8s.co.uk@localhost