From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Apr 16 07:18:54 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id HAA01389
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 1995 07:18:54 -0700
Received: from gw.itfs.nsk.su (gw.itfs.nsk.su [193.124.36.33])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA01346
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 16 Apr 1995 07:17:40 -0700
Received: (nnd@localhost) by gw.itfs.nsk.su (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01173 for current@freebsd.org; Sun, 16 Apr 1995 21:16:25 +0700
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 1995 21:16:25 +0700
From: "Nickolay N. Dudorov" <nnd@gw.itfs.nsk.su>
Message-Id: <199504161416.VAA01173@gw.itfs.nsk.su>
To: current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Ipfw/Ipacct questions
Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>>       Ipfirewall/Ipaccounting code in current
>>only partially enabled/disabled by IPFIREWALL/IPACCT kernel
>>config options. Why does this code contains run time tests
>>(f.e. if(ip_acct_cnt_ptr == NULL) ) when I config kernel
>>without IPFIREWALL/IPACCT ? Is it possible to #ifdef all
>
>   Because ipfw is also an LKM.
>
>-DG

	The next question - is it possible/feasible to
build a kernel which'll not allow modload 'ipfw' LKM ?
It seems to me that such a situation was here some time ago
with IBCS2 support - i.e. I have to define option IBCS2 (?)
for later use of IBCS2-support LKMs.

	N.Dudorov