From owner-cvs-all Tue Dec 29 07:53:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA12460 for cvs-all-outgoing; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 07:53:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA12451 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 07:53:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA03886; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 16:52:34 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from des) To: Peter Wemm Cc: Kenneth Wayne Culver , obrien@nuxi.ucdavis.edu, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: LKM future (was Re: The recent fracas involving danes, war axes and wounded developers ) References: <199812281816.CAA67058@spinner.netplex.com.au> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 29 Dec 1998 16:52:33 +0100 In-Reply-To: Peter Wemm's message of "Tue, 29 Dec 1998 02:16:24 +0800" Message-ID: Lines: 14 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk Peter Wemm writes: > a.out vs ELF speed wise are the same.. The executable code is the same, > the only difference is the wrapping. Now, it may be faster to load a LKM > than a KLD (I'd be a little suprised if this was the case) but it wouldn't > really matter since it's a one-off event. It's slower - it's more or less a function of kernel size and memory size, since you need to link the LKM against the kernel. I once ran an unstripped debugging kernel on a 16 MB machine by mistake. Loading an LKM took half a minute... DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message