Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:12:38 +0200 From: Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> To: "Dragon Fire" <dragonfire820@mediaone.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: KLDs vs static linking Message-ID: <E16Dlm2-000AOu-00@pampa.cs.huji.ac.il> In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 11 Dec 2001 06:26:09 -0500 .
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I use them - where possible - when i have the same kernel for different boxes and i can configure the differences via klm's. danny > Hi Folks, > > Hopefully a quick question. > > Is there any reason to prefer KLD modules for drivers etc over static > linking? For example, KLDs are covenient, loading and unloading for > development but is it a case of using KLD modules for development then > building drivers statically into the kernel when development is complete.Or > is it a case of KLDs are now supported and are the preferred method of > development moving forward. I've read the online KLD docs, developed the > code and greped through kern_linker.c so I understand how to develop KLDs it > but would like to supplement my understanding. > > Thanks in advance, > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E16Dlm2-000AOu-00>