Kernel page, once again

Matthew Burgess matthew at
Wed Jun 16 11:51:47 PDT 2004

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:54:46 +0600
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <see at the.sig> wrote:

> Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> > I'm not saying that using kernel modules has no place: it certainly 
> > does. However, it's less useful than it used to be, and the kernel 
> > developers are pushing people away from using them for everyday 
> > operation with "known" hardware, even if that hardware is plugged in
> > and removed during normal operation.
> So we return to the point raised by Matt: do we want to support
> modular kernels at all? He says we do, and we should do that properly.

But I am but one voice in this community.  What I now think, given the
number and apparent complexity of the problems highlighted by this
thread, is that whatever decision *we* reach regarding supporting
modular kernels, we need to make it *absolutely clear* in the book.

As LFS is *not* a distribution, I don't see that many users would *need*
to compile modules for every conceivable bit of hardware out there. 
Rather, they would go through the .config/menuconfig/etc, and select
what hardware they want/need supported and what won't be.  If they are
indeed doing this, then telling them to select 'Y' instead of 'M' is
a conceivable (but not neccesarily the best) solution.

What I'd like to see is a clear description of all the issues we have
with udev & hotplug at the moment, where we believe the fault lies
(upstream or our instructions/advice), relative complexity, related bugs
and potential solutions. I realise this is duplication of the contents
of this thread, but I think some consolidation is required to help us
move forward on this. I think the Wiki is the right place for this kind
of consolidation.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list