[PLUG] Hardware Woes -- Identified

[sofar]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:18:35 -0800 (PST), Rich Shepard <rshepard at appl-ecosys.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Jason R. Martin wrote:
> 
>> What makes you think the modules *should* be gzipped?  All 2.6.X kernel
>> modules have the .ko extension, which I imagine was to be able to
>> distiguish a loadable kernel module from a standard object file, since
> both
>> are generated in the process of building modules.
> 
>    Don't know about 2.6 modules, but all prior 2.x modules on my systems
> have
> been gzipped. Even the ones installed with the Slackware-10.2 stock 2.4.31
> kernel were compressed. That's why I wondered why the ones I built here
> weren't.

I don't know where you get the idea from that kernel modules should be gzipped or bzipped, but they are not (neither under 2.4 nor under 2.6).

If you are talking about the initrd - yes sure you can compress that. Doing a `make modules_install` under /usr/src/linux does not compress any module, and trying to gzip a file below /lib/modules/`uname -` will result in the message:

WARNING: Module /lib/modules/2.6.16/kernel/fs/binfmt_aout.ko.gz is not an elf object

and not load the module. This is the standard way of installing modules. even rh and suse do it this way.

you can compress an initrd, but not individual modules.


Auke