Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 09:06:03AM -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>   
>> Anyway, I generally concur with Steven, I'd rather get to basic LKMs now
>> and not get bogged down by over-engineering the project.  The real
>> question is: does core@ agree, or are there still serious objections to
>> LKMs in principle.  (It seems like the performance question is mostly
>> answered, though some actual benchmarking would be useful.  Can't do
>> that without actually implementing more LKMs though.)
>>     
>
> What's really needed is an in-kernel loader.  At least two developers
> have stepped up in the past and claimed to be in the midst of writing
> one of those, but nothing's ever come of it.
>   
Anyone working on it now?
> I also question whether, without versioning of modules and without
> inter-library dependencies, this will actually ever be particularly
> useful.  Finally, I think it's important to retain the ability to
> build a monolithic kernel for applications where the entire blob
> must be verified -- *without* running a chain of dependencies and
> hoping you got it right.
>   
Yes, for some things a monolithic kernel is still going to be needed.

We do need versioning, and binary stable APIs as well...  we have the
technology...

    -- Garrett
> Thor
>   


-- 
Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer
Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division,
General Dynamics C4 Systems
http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/
Phone: 951 325-2134  Fax: 951 325-2191