OSDev.org

Hi,

Colonel Kernel wrote: I think by this definition, recent versions of the Linux kernel would qualify as macrokernels (modular) rather than monolithic (big code soup w/ everything compiled in).

What do you think?

I'm sticking with my original analysis - "pure monolithic" and "pure micro-kernel" with an infinite number of hybrid designs (including "macro-kernel") in between .

I guess I'd prefer "monolithic" for Linux as the source code can be used to generate a kernel that doesn't use any modules at all - "macro-kernel" may or may not apply depending on how it's compiled.


Cheers,

Brendan

a bit off-topic:
@Brendan: what are you calling "huge" ?

Hi,

DennisCGc wrote: a bit off-topic:
@Brendan: what are you calling "huge" ?

My server's Linux kernel is 5.6 Mb, with everything needed compiled into the kernel (no modules) and without everything that's not needed (no unused drivers, etc). AFAIK some of this is initialization code that's freed after boot - not sure how much.

I call that huge .


Cheers,

Brendan