Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:39:23 +0100 From: Marian Hettwer <mh@kernel32.de> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Erich Dollansky <oceanare@pacific.net.sg>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: NTFS in GENERIC: opt-in or opt-out? Message-ID: <87233becc6141aa652478f1b3cef36f1@localhost> In-Reply-To: <49743B52.5040108@FreeBSD.org> References: <49743B52.5040108@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:35:30 -0800, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > Erich Dollansky wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 23:25 -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am reviewing differences between amd64 and i386 GENERIC kernels and >>> noticed that for some unclear reason we ship amd64 GENERIC with NTFS >>> module compiled in, while i386 without it. IMHO both should match. The >>> question is whether NTFS should be i386 way (opt in) or amd64 way (opt >> >> the Windows file system? >> >> I would use opt-in as most people will not need it. > > Any particular reason why not? Memory is cheap, 100-200KB of extra > kernel code doesn't really matter today, while NTFS is probably the most > widespread filesystem after MSDOS. Therefore supporting it in the > GENERIC out of the box even in the read-only mode (our NTFS driver is > read-only AFAIK) could benefit many users. > I'd like to have it loaded as a modile on demand, as soon as I try to mount_ntfs. I would throw it out of GENERIC if its up to me. Although I don't have technical arguments for throwing it out of GENERIC ;) Cheers, ./Marian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87233becc6141aa652478f1b3cef36f1>