meerkats at bellsouth.net
Thu Feb 26 11:41:31 PST 2004
On Wednesday 25 February 2004 11:36 pm, Albert wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:33:13 -0500
> Craig Colton <meerkats at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > "If you are maintaining one system and memory is not in short
> > > supply, it is probably easier to avoid modprobe and the various
> > > files and directories it needs, and just do raw insmods in a startup
> > > script." Which startup script(s) would that be? Does anyone here do
> > > this?
> > I'm no kernel expert, but this statement is nothing but goofy krap
> > (maybe its out of context?). The only advantage of using modules is
> > that they can be loaded and unloaded as necessary, thereby not
> > wasting computer resources. Why would you insert modules (insmod) at
> > startup if they are not needed? This, as far as I can see, is no
> > different than having the drivers "built in".
> My understanding was that the only resource lost is a little memory. You
> still retain all the flexibility of modules. You can manually unload
> and load for testing and debugging. But the big difference from "built
> in" is that you don't have to mess with a working kernel.
Surely the author of the statement above didn't advise the reader to use a
start up script to test or debug modules.
More information about the blfs-support