On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 12:34:22PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> You're right that it needs to be possible to build static kernels.  I'd 
> love a framework where the identical .o could be used either way. 

As someone who used to rely pretty heavily on static Linux kernels to
preserve his sanity while debugging, I'd like to say that if we're going
to do it the Linux way, I *really* would not love such a framework.

Linux implements symbol versioning on all symbols in a kernel with loadable
module support by mangling their names in a way that makes it _extremely_
difficult to see what's going on with the debugger, or with normal tools
for looking at object files.  It would be nice to not make that mistake,
which can also make it very difficult to see why the kernel fails to link
at build time, if it does.

-- 
  Thor Lancelot Simon	                                     tls@rek.tjls.com

  "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
   aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others."      - H.L.A. Hart