Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:31:42 +0100 From: Ben Smithurst <ben@scientia.demon.co.uk> To: cjclark@home.com Cc: Michael Harnois <mdharnois@home.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: why are all modules built? Message-ID: <20000529183142.A29735@strontium.scientia.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20000529124412.F58958@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> References: <868zwtv0lu.fsf@mharnois.workgroup.net> <20000529124412.F58958@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Crist J. Clark wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 10:26:37AM -0500, Michael Harnois wrote: >> Why does a kernel build build all modules whether they are going to be >> used or not? Or am I missing something? > > I don't believe a kernel build builds any modules. The kld(4)'s are > only built at a make-world, IIRC. Or is that not what you are talking > about? In -current at least modules are built as part of the kernel build. This is rather annoying on a 486 where a kernel build took long enough before, but it's probably better than booting the kernel and getting a panic because the modules are out of sync. As for why they're all built, rather than just the ones that will be used, I guess it's because FreeBSD doesn't have a telepathy module which can tell which modules the admin will kldload in advance. -- Ben Smithurst / ben@scientia.demon.co.uk / PGP: 0x99392F7D To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000529183142.A29735>