From owner-freebsd-current Wed Aug 16 10:43:29 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id KAA16254 for current-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 10:43:29 -0700 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA16247 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 10:43:28 -0700 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA09871; Wed, 16 Aug 95 11:36:17 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9508161736.AA09871@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: procfs problems in -current? To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 11:36:16 MDT In-Reply-To: <199508160608.IAA02626@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Aug 16, 95 08:08:35 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > As Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > > > ./vnode_if.h: vnode_if.h > > > > > > What's this? > ... > > Why do you ask? 8-). > > Since i've ran into the following trouble: > > My user `bin' used to have checked out copies from config, sys and lkm > (and include, FWIW) below his home directory. This is where > everything happens when i'm playing with new stuff in kernelland. > Once in a while, whenever i think it's necessary to upgrade the > kernel, i `cvs update' those modules and rebuild everything > (including, when required, re-configuring). This used to work all the > time, but recently, all loaded VFS modules yielded garbage and > eventually panicked the system. (The actual reason must have been the > changes in the way the mounts are being tracked, i suppose.) It > turned out that cvs remove'ing the whole lkm module and checking it > out again actually worked, but then this is only an evidence that > something in the dependency handling of the Makefiles (or make(1) > itself :) is broken. The dependencies could be happier, especially for things that need to be rebuilt that aren't standard pieces. I'd prefer a system build rather than a kernel build for changes that affect the semantics of interfaces... I don't know how you'd enforce that if people only updated their kernel. Supposedly, you'd bump the version number in the lkm.h at the same time. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.