Date:        Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:34:50 +0100
    From:        joerg@britannica.bec.de
    Message-ID:  <20060220133450.GB1448@britannica.bec.de>

I'd prefer to keep this topic to the original question, but ...

  | Sorry, this is just bull shit. LKMs add *zero* overhead to the kernel.

Huh?   You mean they don't need any code sitting around occupying
memory waiting for an LKM to come along to load?   And a call of a
function in an LKM (from outside, or a different LKM) goes exactly
as fast as a call of the same function if it is statically linked?

You might not consider the costs significant enough to care about,
or you might consider the benefits worth the cost, but don't start
claiming that the cost is zero.

  | You have the symbol table in the kernel, as soon as e.g. debugging is
  | wanted too.

But most people don't want debugging in the kernel.   It crashes,
I reboot it.   If it happens often, I might send a PR (but it doesn't).

  | Proper kernel module support dramatically reduces the need to have
  | alternative kernels.

Sure, and if you're doing binary distributions that matters.  But
most of the use of LKMs (with NetBSD) is by people with the sources
who just don't want to be bothered compiling the kernel they need.
`
  | No ACPI subkernels needed, since ACPI is loaded as module
  | or not, depending on need.

How many times does one of your systems change from needing ACPI
to not needing ACPI dynamically, while it is running, without
rebooting it?

kre