Re: Fixed modular kernel path and different kernels

[Paul Goyette <paul%whooppee.com@localhost>]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017, Mouse wrote:

> > 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 non-modular kernel doesn't allow for unload/reload.

Both the 'tarball' and 'subdir' variants of the 'lukem proposal' do
indeed bind the kernel to its modules' file-system location, but not
to the modules themselves.  At least the 'subdir' variant would still
provides for reasonably uncomplicated replacement of those modules
(modunload, replace file, modload).  The 'tarball' variant would
certainly be more complicated, and likely poorer performance.

The 'tarball' variant has other problems, such as "how does the kernel
extract a module from the tarball to facilitate auto-load?"  Last time
I looked, there was no kernel version of tar or pax.  :)  IMHO, Loss of
the autoload capability would severely reduce the useability of modules.




+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| Paul Goyette     | PGP Key fingerprint:     | E-mail addresses:      |
| (Retired)        | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com   |
| Kernel Developer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at netbsd.org |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+