From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Aug 24 18:32:23 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C426310912E7 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 18:32:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cy.schubert@cschubert.com) Received: from smtp-out-no.shaw.ca (smtp-out-no.shaw.ca [64.59.134.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "Client", Issuer "CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 494DF71AE2; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 18:32:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cy.schubert@cschubert.com) Received: from spqr.komquats.com ([70.67.125.17]) by shaw.ca with ESMTPA id tGq1fJuIXWppDtGq2ffrsf; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 12:29:40 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=YIcrNiOx c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=VFtTW3WuZNDh6VkGe7fA3g==:117 a=VFtTW3WuZNDh6VkGe7fA3g==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=dapMudl6Dx4A:10 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=YxBL1-UpAAAA:8 a=8SmM-VJUJX5Xg7LfDU4A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=IjZwj45LgO3ly-622nXo:22 a=Ia-lj3WSrqcvXOmTRaiG:22 Received: from slippy.cwsent.com (slippy8 [10.2.2.6]) by spqr.komquats.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0C702E7; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 11:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slippy.cwsent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slippy.cwsent.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w7OITKHD030020; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 11:29:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com) Received: from slippy (cy@localhost) by slippy.cwsent.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id w7OITKON030017; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 11:29:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com) Message-Id: <201808241829.w7OITKON030017@slippy.cwsent.com> X-Authentication-Warning: slippy.cwsent.com: cy owned process doing -bs X-Mailer: exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2012 with nmh-1.7.1 Reply-to: Cy Schubert From: Cy Schubert X-os: FreeBSD X-Sender: cy@cwsent.com X-URL: http://www.cschubert.com/ To: Ian Lepore cc: Cy Schubert , Johannes Lundberg , freebsd-current Subject: Re: priority of paths to kernel modules? In-Reply-To: Message from Ian Lepore of "Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:16:31 -0600." <1535127391.1488.23.camel@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 11:29:20 -0700 X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfNeG0s/SZAWMgqvsuA9ftK3puypUgwczYGVhHoeIRp/OPshU/LHhUQEgZrV5oJuyMCbjND7JCfYkl28XcfFdDKKG588dLdBudB1tOLmqbUFM+iOx8/VI 39hNN7ROCWRxg4TSuGDwO/U1KdlvY1Yqm5KNOirjTtJ+8AFEPYm1EelLtxZLpn7+G9iV16dl+V/V18uvNrltaRcbItkBz/y9skpjgdNOOS55rQMN89rrGuF1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 18:32:23 -0000 In message <1535127391.1488.23.camel@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes: > On Fri, 2018-08-24 at 08:35 -0700, Cy Schubert wrote: > > My idea, which I implemented locally and should probably create a > > phab review, was to ifdef DRM in modules/Makefile. We could do this > > too. Default not to build/install. > > > > This seems like the obvious fix. I thought the whole point of all this > is that we support drm2 on some platforms, but not x86 anymore. So to > me that implies not building the modules by default on x86. Then we limit it knob to only those platforms we wish to remove it from now. I suggested default off however in a private email I received it was intimated to me that default on for the first while would be better. Personally, I don't care about the minutia but I do care that we have some kind of migration roadmap. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert FreeBSD UNIX: Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.