On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 10:39:48PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >
> > I wonder whether it's appropriate to use separate kern set for them
> > too (like kern-ps2.tgz, similarily to kern-tiny or kern-laptop), or
> > the support should be put into GENERIC. Since typical i386 user would
> > probably not have an IBM PS/2, I think it's more appropriate to use
> > separate kern set.
> > Is there any good reason to use single GENERIC, which would include
> > support for IBM PS/2?
> 
> yes. the reason is that generic kernel is for booting any machine and not
> for general use as it's wasteful.
> for normal use you should compile your custom kernel.

IMO, it depends on the impact of the changes.  If it is just an increase
in the size of the kernel, go for it.  After all GENERIC is a pig anyway.
If it is going to slow down a GENERIC kernel, I would recommend against it.
While it is not recommended to run GENERIC for performance reasons, it is
often done, and the extra size is not really an issue on modern(*) x86
hardware.

Having said all of that, I would tend to think a lot of PS/2 machines would
barely boot with a stock GENERIC.  So even with PS/2 support in GENERIC, it
seems like a PS2_SMALL kernel might be appropriate as well.

It would be quite painful to rebuild a custom kernel on a PS/2 with 16MB,
or even 8MB.  Especially if the kernel itself is over 5MB!

My $.02

-Andrew