Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:32:15 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: matt <sendtomatt@gmail.com> Cc: rank1seeker@gmail.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 8 to 9: Kernel modularization -- did it change? Message-ID: <4F3EF18F.5020301@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4F3EDEBC.7040703@gmail.com> References: <CAOjFWZ6WM1bLEwaBiUE50Gj4MrwxefDWFb85ecRtYkSDuZ0erg@mail.gmail.com> <mailpost.1329495670.7246668.67851.mailing.freebsd.hackers@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw> <4F3E8225.9030501@FreeBSD.org> <E1RyRKJ-000Ioa-Ec@hans3> <4F3E8C26.3080900@FreeBSD.org> <E1RyRq0-000Iqy-3l@hans3> <4F3EA5F2.9070804@gmail.com> <E1RyTZo-000J0R-0Y@hans3> <4F3EAE5F.6070903@gmail.com> <E1RyUv6-000J5e-0E@hans3> <20120217.220802.988.2@DOMY-PC> <4F3EDEBC.7040703@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 02/17/12 14:08, rank1seeker@gmail.com wrote: >>> For me as a user, that would be a much preferable approach, instilled >>> long ago by Linux. I don't like unused stuff around, and I like to >>> understand what I am using. >>> >>> Some build kernel confutation parameters "minimum modules", "medium >>> modules", "maximum modules" might be utilized. I would be using >>> "medium" or most likely "maximum", leaving me with a minimal kernel. >>> >>> -- Alex -- alex-goncharov@comcast.net -- >> NO. >> >>> Thinking bigger picture (beyond sound), would it make sense to keep >>> GENERIC very minimal, but provide an extensive loader.conf with a >>> default install...so most things worked, but were loaded as modules? >>> >>> Matt >> NO. >> >> >> You can't base a "wish" on a solution for YOURS problems! >> >> GENERIC must be as giantic as possible, to make as many machines as possible to BOOT and enable all what can be enabled in/on them. >> THEN ... individual "strips" unhooked parts -> custom kernel, via wich you "specialize it", for your hardware! >> >> That is, unless individual is passive/bored (lazy?) and prefer everything on a silver plate ... >> There are many paths in that case ... >> Windows are the easiest solution. THEY THINK FOR YOU! >> ;) >> >> >> Domagoj Smolčić >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > I'm tired of Linux and "everything should be in the kernel, implemented > 4 ways" approach. > > I think you misunderstood. GENERIC should be able to boot anything > bootable within the architecture, right? We agree on that. Is sound > required for booting? > > We have a modular kernel. It makes best-practices-sense to keep the > kernel true to what's required to boot and initialize the hardware > required to come up multiuser. I am actually against having sound in > there at all. > > However, as a compromise, if it must be in there, then put it in > loader.conf and not the kernel. > > Do we still disagree? I think we probably should go two ways long and short term 1/ generic is installed at boot a) also install a truely "minimal" kernel and configure modules to use with it. but only once up and running with GENERIC. 2/ in the logn term we should add teh ability to detect devices and load modules needed.. either from the loader, or in early boot. > Matt > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F3EF18F.5020301>