On a philosophical note, I like being able to unload a module and
replace it at runtime, without having to reboot. I might want to play
around with the code in a module, for educational purposes, and being
able to reload an altered module makes a huge difference in how quickly
I can test my changes.
Also, I suspect that if the modular option were removed then eventually
the code would evolve to a state where it would be impossible to
reinstate the option (i.e. the driver would become tightly coupled to
other kernel code). There have been drivers in the past that would not
build as modules, because they made the assumption that their
dependencies were built into the kernel.
A good example is the old 2.4 kernel IDE stuff, where the IDE disk
driver would barf on compilation if the IDE base driver was built as a
module instead of compiled into the kernel.
I guess it just gives me the creeps to think that we're setting up
conditions that would allow tight coupling of drivers to arise once
again.
Of course, I'm not an expert or anything. What /are/ the disadvantages
to having a modular driver, as opposed to having it built in to the
kernel?
--
James C. Georgas <[email protected]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
