Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:53:59 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: *_ROOT removed Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102081449090.3719-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200102080125.f181PRt70396@mobile.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > Does this mean that 'FFS' isn't optional anymore? I mean it probably
> > hasn't been (or never was) but the intention was that to build 4.4BSD
> > you needed _either_ UFS or INET, but you could ditch either one and
> > still build a kernel.
>
> No, FFS_ROOT was unused. We have a generic mountroot mechanism, so we no
> longer needed to compile the "special" FFS-specific version of the code
> into autoconf.c. FFS is still optional. For i386 FFS_ROOT and CD9660_ROOT
> did nothing, and on alpha/ia64 it did something that was more likely to
> cause problems than help.
Except the optionality of FFS is broken. Leaving it out gives:
ufs_lookup.o: In function `ufs_dirremove':
ufs_lookup.o(.text+0x125e): undefined reference to `ffs_snapgone'
ufs_lookup.o: In function `ufs_dirrewrite':
ufs_lookup.o(.text+0x1349): undefined reference to `ffs_snapgone'
ffs_snapgone is in an optional file but is referenced in a standard file.
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0102081449090.3719-100000>