From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 5 20: 7:37 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from relay.butya.kz (butya-gw.butya.kz [212.154.129.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8BFE37BED7 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 20:07:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bp@butya.kz) Received: from bp (helo=localhost) by relay.butya.kz with local-esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 12z9hb-000FTX-00; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:06:51 +0700 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:06:51 +0700 (ALMST) From: Boris Popov To: "Yevmenkin, Maksim N, CSCIO" Cc: "'hackers@freebsd.org'" Subject: RE: kerneld for FreeBSD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Yevmenkin, Maksim N, CSCIO wrote: > > I have no faith at all any metric other than one determined > > by the module > > itself to indicate "unuse", and if a module wants to unload > > itself due to > > so you point is that we could put a "use/unuse" logic inside > each of kernel module. is that correct? even if different > kernel modules implement device drivers for the same class > of hardware? network interfaces (cards) for example. i would > say if interface is marked as ``down'', has no IP, has no > references in routing table/firewall, it could be considered > as ``gone''. No, in general it is not desirable, because it will require hardware reprobe operation on the next load. For PCCARDs we already have pccardd(8) which can be integrated into devd at some point. The whole idea of kerneld sounds unreasonable to me. It is completely unneeded for servers and may have only limited use for FreeBSD based workstations. More to the point - for some machines I'm compile all required modules into a single (or two) KLDs - in this case kerneld will not be helpful at all. Remember, KLD != module. -- Boris Popov http://www.butya.kz/~bp/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message