Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:24:26 +0000 From: "Wojciech A. Koszek" <wkoszek@freebsd.org> To: LI Xin <delphij@delphij.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>, Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com> Subject: Re: Reverting to 6.2-RELEASE Message-ID: <20070319182426.GA22325@FreeBSD.czest.pl> In-Reply-To: <45FE9CF9.70100@delphij.net> References: <E1HTGt3-000F0K-9m@dilbert.ticketswitch.com> <45FE8EF3.7030400@delphij.net> <028501c76a2b$3c496750$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20070319142604.GA21454@FreeBSD.czest.pl> <45FE9CF9.70100@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 10:23:53PM +0800, LI Xin wrote: > Wojciech A. Koszek wrote: [..] > >> I always use options INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE for my kernel :-) Maybe we > >> should add it to DEFAULTS some day... > > > > I did some work in this area, as several system administrators I've met > > also seem to have problem with kernel configuration recovery. In my case > > I came with a method of obtaining a configuration of a running kernel > > via sysctl (kern.conftxt for now) and via config(8) form the kernel file. > > > > Hopefully this work will get more review soon. > > Not sure how useful could it be to expose it via sysctl(8) interface but > sounds interesting to me. Have you posted the patch somewhere? Well, being able to ask about output of: sysctl -a | egrep '(LOCK_PROFILING|WITNESS)' Or any other important options, whose impact isn't directly noticeable is useful, at least for me; even without mentioning, how useful would be to have a feature in our build infrastructure, which could warn a user, that the kernel module which is being compiled separately (e.g: from ports/) doesn't have LOCK_PROFILING, while the running kernel has this option included. -- Wojciech A. Koszek wkoszek@FreeBSD.org http://FreeBSD.czest.pl/dunstan/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070319182426.GA22325>