6PACK - Another question
Hi All,
In the documentation /.../6pack.txt, the author says the driver has only been tested as a module and not built-in to the kernel.
Has anyone on this list used the 6pack driver in the built-in version with kernel 2.2.20?
I always opt for built-in drivers for stuff I know I'll use and maybe this has been my downfall in this case :-(
No drama, of course, to recompile the kernel with the driver as a module but I may as well test the waters first :-)
Regards
Ray Wells VK2TV
Quoted 5 lines · Ray Wells
In the documentation /.../6pack.txt, the author says the driver has only been tested as a module and not built-in to the kernel.
Has anyone on this list used the 6pack driver in the built-in version with kernel 2.2.20?
Linux 2.2, that's extremly old - ages from before I took over it's maintainership. But the code actually looks okay. Sure you don't want to upgrade to a piece of software from this decade?
Quoted 2 lines
I always opt for built-in drivers for stuff I know I'll use and maybe this has been my downfall in this case :-(
For custom kernels that will save a tiny amount of memory and give a small, almost unmeassurable performance gain. You lose the advantage of for example being able to re-initialize a subsystem by unloading and reloading it's module.
Given all that what learned about problems with the 2.2 module loader we can probably declare it a buggy horror trip from today's perspective.
Quoted 2 lines
No drama, of course, to recompile the kernel with the driver as a module but I may as well test the waters first :-)
The 2.2 6pack driver looks ok, certainly up to the standards of those days and I wouldn't expect any problems with it from linking it.
73 de DL5RB op Ralf
--
Loc. JN47BS / CQ 14 / ITU 28 / DOK A21
Quoted 6 lines · Ralf Baechle DL5RB wrote:
Quoted 2 lines · Ray Wells
In the documentation /.../6pack.txt, the author says the driver has only been tested as a module and not built-in to the kernel.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Has anyone on this list used the 6pack driver in the built-in version with kernel 2.2.20?
Linux 2.2, that's extremly old - ages from before I took over it's maintainership. But the code actually looks okay. Sure you don't want to upgrade to a piece of software from this decade?
I've stuck with 2.2.x kernels because they have been reliable. When I started looking at 2.4.x kernels there appeared to be unresolved issues with the USCC driver, and since I run a USCC>4 card I decided to stick with what was already working well. I still can't see any compelling reason to move away from the 2.2.20 kernel.
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 5 lines
I always opt for built-in drivers for stuff I know I'll use and maybe this has been my downfall in this case :-(
For custom kernels that will save a tiny amount of memory and give a small, almost unmeassurable performance gain. You lose the advantage of for example being able to re-initialize a subsystem by unloading and reloading it's module.
Given all that what learned about problems with the 2.2 module loader we can probably declare it a buggy horror trip from today's perspective.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
No drama, of course, to recompile the kernel with the driver as a module but I may as well test the waters first :-)
The 2.2 6pack driver looks ok, certainly up to the standards of those days and I wouldn't expect any problems with it from linking it.
I'll recompile with 6pack as a module and see what happens. I really don't have the time to spend sorting out the problems that will arise from changing to a leter kernel. KISS has served me well for 6 years so, if I can't get 6pack working under 2.2.20 I'll just abandon it and stay with KISS.
Quoted 8 lines
73 de DL5RB op Ralf
--
Loc. JN47BS / CQ 14 / ITU 28 / DOK A21
Cheers ... Ray VK2TV