Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:03:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r362338 - in head: share/man/man4 sys/conf sys/kern sys/netinet sys/netinet6 sys/netipsec sys/netpfil/pf Message-ID: <202006221903.05MJ3cRJ011716@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <cbbab0d0-a91e-f9d8-1a5d-33ba3f36c26d@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 6/21/20 6:10 PM, Mark Johnston wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:33:35AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > >> On 6/18/20 12:32 PM, Mark Johnston wrote: > >>> Author: markj > >>> Date: Thu Jun 18 19:32:34 2020 > >>> New Revision: 362338 > >>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/362338 > >>> > >>> Log: > >>> Add the SCTP_SUPPORT kernel option. > >>> > >>> This is in preparation for enabling a loadable SCTP stack. Analogous to > >>> IPSEC/IPSEC_SUPPORT, the SCTP_SUPPORT kernel option must be configured > >>> in order to support a loadable SCTP implementation. > >>> > >>> Discussed with: tuexen > >>> MFC after: 2 weeks > >>> Sponsored by: The FreeBSD Foundation > >> > >> Do you want to add similar handling to sys/conf/config.mk that we have > >> for IPsec? Also, do we want to avoid building sctp.ko if it is in the > >> kernel like we do for ipsec.ko and/or only build it if the kernel contains > >> SCTP_SUPPORT? (For ipsec.ko we had to do that as it wouldn't compile, not > >> sure if the same is true for sctp.ko) > > > > Sorry for the delay. > > I think we do indeed want similar handling in config.mk, I will work on > > it. It is probably also reasonable to avoid compiling sctp.ko when > > SCTP_SUPPORT is not defined, though I can't see a reason that wouldn't > > work today since SCTP_SUPPORT is not used in any headers. > > Ok. ipsec.ko mattered more when the build broke. Whether or not we compile > "duplicate" modules for kernels is perhaps a larger question. I think I > might favor that change, but it is a larger change that merits some thought. > In particular, you want good code coverage for things like LINT builds, so > maybe we really should still compile modules whenever possible. As a person that builds a lot of stuff into his kernel, aka I run moduleless most of the time, I still would like the modules to build so I know I have not busted that with other changes. It is just too easy to do, IMHO. > -- > John Baldwin -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202006221903.05MJ3cRJ011716>