Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:11:46 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stale modules (Re: panic in the morning) Message-ID: <00042014114601.25646@nomad.dataplex.net> In-Reply-To: <38FF5369.7BE907CA@altavista.net> References: <20000419162806.A8502@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de> <38FF44A6.F7C3C20B@cvzoom.net> <38FF5369.7BE907CA@altavista.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > Then, we could add an option > > "make modules" and "make install_modules" so that they could be > > built/installed with the kernel. > > > > After all, modules ARE a part of the kernel... > > Looks like *really* nice idea. This would allow to solve "stale modules" > problem at minimal cost. First we need to address the problem of "multiple kernels". Linux does this by having the modules associated with a particular kernel in a directory whose name is kernel dependent. After that, I personally think that we should treat the "kernel" as if it is just another module in the set. Rather than building a kernel, you ALWAYS build/rebuild/install the entire set. As long as the proper Makefiles are controlling the build, it won't be "expensive" for make to examine each module to verify that it is up-to-date. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00042014114601.25646>