Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:31:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:30:56 -0500 Received: from [193.120.224.170] ([193.120.224.170]:8592 "EHLO florence.itg.ie") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:30:47 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:30:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Paul Jakma To: Alan Cox cc: Jeff Garzik , David Woodhouse , Dan Hollis , Oliver Xymoron , Keith Owens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote: > If the sound card is only used some of the time or setup and then used > for TV its nice to get the 60K + 128K DMA buffer back when you dont need it > especially on a low end box > so unload it then - aiui most soundcards will continue passing through the TV line? right? or another argument: how common is this case that a box with such tight memory is used in such a multi-purpose way (sometimes it uses sounds, mostly not? and even then, for such a case, is it reasonable to assume the user should deal with the memory problems? (ie it's not unreasonable to expect them to have to do extra fiddling with mixer levels). but surely the vast majority of machines with soundcards have no good reason for unloading them? --paulj - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/