Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 22:44:37 +0200 From: Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Steven Schlansker <scs@eecs.berkeley.edu> Subject: Re: pfsync in GENERIC? Message-ID: <200905292244.37398.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> In-Reply-To: <C113D42F-C628-4E91-8AFE-BD2556502AC7@EECS.Berkeley.EDU> References: <89C182FE-81B9-474E-84EA-FBB6F68C4E75@eecs.berkeley.edu> <200905292001.02072.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> <C113D42F-C628-4E91-8AFE-BD2556502AC7@EECS.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 29 May 2009 20:38:54 Steven Schlansker wrote: > And not to be argumentative, but sys/conf/NOTES does not really > provide any information. The only comment explains what the device > does, not why it wouldn't be enabled in GENERIC. Is there any reason > it could not be? (For those of us who want to use freebsd-update, for > example) Choice of the project. You'd have to ask on -current, -pf or -hackers for a more authoritative answer, but my guess would be that 80% of the people using this feature in production have a highly optimized kernel and wouldn't be using GENERIC to begin with. -- Mel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200905292244.37398.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions>