Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 17:01:33 +0800 (WST) From: Peter Wemm <peter@jhome.DIALix.COM> To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net>, jkh@freefall.freebsd.org, CVS-commiters@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950923162419.320E-100000@jhome.DIALix.COM> In-Reply-To: <199509230749.JAA17346@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 23 Sep 1995, J Wunsch wrote: > As Nate Williams wrote: > > > > I still think it would be much better to add the SYSV stuff during the > > build process and instead add both console drivers. This way you could > > add the SYSV stuff in the same manner as you build the MFS stuff. > > LKM's? That's what I thought too when I spoke to Jordan shortly before he did it. When we were talking, I griped about the fact that if the SYSV* stuff was not loaded, and somebody tried to use them, the system mercilessly killed the processes without explaination, causing much confusion by the user. There are a couple of things that spring to mind.... First, instead of making the system call table for the sysv routines pointing to nosys(), they could point to something that does a tprintf() (or is that uprintf()) giving them a message _why_ they got killed, before calling nosys(). This may actually be useful in general if there was a generic nosys()-type wrapper that printed the name/number of the attempted syscall before zapping the process. Second, this sort of thing is crying out for Terry's demand-loading LKM's, but I dont really want to get into that religion.. :-) If we hunted around, I'm sure we could find enough stuff that could be demand-loaded to make the space saving bigger than the cost of the kernel-linker on average. (ppp, slip, tun, sysv*, some of the fs's, etc).. Third, I'd be happier if they were LKM's by default rather than in GENERIC, and the "as-shipped" /etc/sysconfig loaded them by default, with the abilility to disable them. I think that'd get around Jordan's need to ship a fully-functional system that Xaccel, XFree etc wont blow up on if the advertised SHM extension was used. I don't have the time/inclination to do that however, so I wont complain. If Jordan can make it fit on the floppy, as far as I'm concerned (since there's no "better" solutions to the vendor's needs yet), he can go right ahead. Cheers, -Peter > -- > cheers, J"org > > joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ > Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.950923162419.320E-100000>