Results 1 to 7 of 7
Thread: static or dinamic kernel?
|
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
|
|
-
07-06-2005 #1
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 131
static or dinamic kernel?
I have just finished (I hope) to upgrade my toshiba laptop running slack10.1(current) to the new kernel2.6.11.11 - I have come across a few problems that, thanx to google and other freindly ppl in yahoo chat rooms, I managed to resolve eventually playing on this new kernel2.6 - I only have one more thing to understand to pass from a total newbie to a (almost) self-sufficient linux user
what is the difference (in terms of performance/s) between building a static or dinamic kernel? would the manual compilation of modules be more performance-effective?
any suggestion is welcome - thanxIf you get on the wrong train all the stations you will come to will be the wrong stations.
Zen
-
07-07-2005 #2
I've never heard static and dynamic being applied to the kernel.
They are normally applied to IP addresses.If you want to learn more about linux take a linux journey
https://linuxjourney.com/
Use CODE tags when posting output of commands. Thank you.
https://www.linuxcounter.net/cert/608410.png
-
07-07-2005 #3
Originally Posted by budman7
Although I've never really heard discussion of dynamic vs. static linking of kernel/kernel modules as I believe that it is a whole other animal than userspace. Kernel modules aren't linked against userspace libraries; instead of using shared libraries, they used a kernel symbol table, and different modules and export various symbols (functions, variables, etc.) much like shared userspace libraries export these functions and variables to programs which link against them.
I hope this clears things up.
-
07-07-2005 #4
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 131
Static and dynamic can also refer to how a program is compiled; that is are all of the libraries statically linked to it (creating a larger executable which is in turn portable to systems lacking the libraries in question) or dynamic linked, with the libraries dynamically loaded at run time resulting in smaller, less-portable code.
Although I've never really heard discussion of dynamic vs. static ..............
furthermore, what I meant by static was building the kernel with permanent built-in code/s or dinamically by adding them as modules and then compile whenever u need that specific module - however, i think that it's clear in my head now as I am in fact about to finish building my new kernel2.6 to finally work fully
thanx to ALLIf you get on the wrong train all the stations you will come to will be the wrong stations.
Zen
-
07-07-2005 #5
Well wait a second; compiling something into the kernel and compiling it as a module is an important decision.
My general rule is, unless you use an initrd image (which I don't), then there are two things you must consider if something is available as a module:
1. Do I need this to boot my system properly? (Like for example a driver for my hard-drive or do I need SATA, etc.) If so, then compile it as built-in.
2. 99% of the time, if number one is false, then compile it as a module.
-
07-07-2005 #6
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 131
yeah that was kind of what I meant, though it took me two installations and about 12 hours of working on it to get that!
If you get on the wrong train all the stations you will come to will be the wrong stations.
Zen
-
07-07-2005 #7
Glad to help.