From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 20 16:53:08 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB4CB37B401 for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-relay.omnis.com (smtp-relay.omnis.com [216.239.128.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF27E43FAF for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:53:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from softweyr.homeunix.net (66-91-236-204.san.rr.com [66.91.236.204]) by smtp-relay.omnis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC824304D; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:53:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr To: Scott Long , Bruce Evans Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:52:37 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200304182047.h3IKlhIZ000817@number6.magda.ca> <20030419165033.V15269@gamplex.bde.org> <3EA10351.3010001@btc.adaptec.com> In-Reply-To: <3EA10351.3010001@btc.adaptec.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200304201652.37912.wes@softweyr.com> cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: config(8) should check if a scheduler is selected X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 23:53:08 -0000 On Saturday 19 April 2003 01:05, Scott Long wrote: > Bruce Evans wrote: > > > > It is the only mandatory option (sic). Kernels with no options > > (although they might not be useful) can be built except for this bug. > > Example of a minimal config file (before misconfiguration of the > > configuration of scheduling). > > > > %%% > > machine i386 > > cpu I686_CPU > > ident MIN > > %%% > > The scheduler is (one of) the first core subsystems to be made > modular. If by chance the VM system became modular (VM_MACH, VM_UVM > =-) you'd have a similar situation there also. Doesn't this argue for a keyword rather than an option? If you have to have one or the other for the kernel to function, wouldn't a 'scheduler' keyword (and likewise a 'vm' or 'vm_model' keyword) save us from the lunacy of non-optional options? > I'm afraid that the lack of seatbelts in config(8) for SCHED_xxx will > generate a lot of user complaints when 5.1 is released. Since code to > implement it has not magically appeared yet, we might have to make due > with adding extra eye-catching comments to things like NOTES and > GENERIC. Or maybe we could fix it? > > BTW, a minimal kernel is now almost 3 times as large as in FreeBSD-2 > > due to general bloat and misconfiguration of configuration in the > > opposite way (subsystems much larger than scheduling are standard; > > you can still leave out FFS and INET but many less useful subsystems > > are standard). > > Some of us remember when 250k FreeBSD kernels were not hard to > configure =-) And 330K kernels were the norm, as long as you eschewed NFS. Sigh. -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com