On Sunday 08 Sep 2002 7:20 pm, Adam Bower wrote:
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 06:46:07PM +0100, Ian Thompson-bell wrote:
I have never understood why people want to build monolithic kernels. Modules were introduced just so this could be avoided. I can understand rebuilding to get rid of unused stuff but surely modules are more flexible and resource efficient?
It depends, i tend to build modules for things that i don't often use or require but if it something is in use 24/7 (like the usb for my modem) then it gets built in statically.
Why? What is the advantage?
Also the reason my USB support got built in
was in the early days of 2.4 series kernel the modules did not load reliably and as i had a USB mouse I found i had to built it into the kernel. The real issue with the 2 drivers for the UHCI chipsets imho is a bug, as I am 99% sure that when i originally built the kernels there was only 1 driver, the bit where the kernel configurator hides the option that is still relevant and applicable is wrong. They could have at least changed the option to show it is there but not selectable in this case.
If you build these two different USB modules, how are they differentiated?
ian