Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:13:05 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Coleman Kane <cokane@cokane.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org, cokane@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: separate 3dfx_linux module Message-ID: <20060227121305.GO6435@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20060225201102.GA6936@pint.candc.home> References: <20060225140509.GC79616@comp.chem.msu.su> <44008314.8030205@samsco.org> <20060225201102.GA6936@pint.candc.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 03:11:02PM -0500, Coleman Kane wrote: > I have unfortunately lost all of my voodoo hardware. > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 09:17:24AM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > > Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > >Hi there, > > > > > >In the course of reviewing and cleaning up the default configuration > > >of kernel options, it was suggested by the Release Engineers that > > >we had a separate module for TDFX_LINUX instead of placing the > > >burden on the device tdfx and module 3dfx. Could anybody interested > > >test this change? I've made sure it builds, but I have no 3dfx hw > > >to really test it. The testing is as simple as building the new > > >3dfx and 3dfx_linux modules, loading them, and verifying that the > > >linux apps work with the device as before. Thanks in advance! > > > > > Sounds goo to me. I am all for further modularization of the codebase. Thanks! > > Why keep the TDFX_LINUX option defined in sys/conf/options? > > Sounds good to me. In the event that you want to build this statically > into the kernel, doesn't the option still need to be available, > or are we talking about a device tdfxlinux ? It was exactly my point, too: the TDFX_LINUX option has to be there so that people still can compile device tdfx with Linux support into the main kernel file. -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060227121305.GO6435>