Re: Fixed modular kernel path and different kernels

[Taylor R Campbell <campbell+netbsd-tech-kern%mumble.net@localhost>]

   Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:36:38 -0500 (EST)
   From: Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>

   > please consider lukem's proposal from a large number of years ago
   > where the kernel + modules are considered a unit and are stored
   > together (in a tarball?  in a subdir?  details..)

   To put on my iconoclast hat for a moment, how does this differ from a
   non-modular kernel, inherently bound to all its "modules"?  (Yes, I can
   think of a bunch of ways too.  My point is to provoke thought and
   discussion, not to just get an answer to the question asked.)

The modular version has reduced RAM and KVA requirements, and -- at
least in the subdirectory version -- admits dynamic loading of new
modules built after the kernel has been booted, e.g. during driver
development.