From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 4 15:42:22 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stable@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70EC816A4C7; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:42:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.net) Received: from lariat.net (lariat.net [65.122.236.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A34D643D46; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:42:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.net) Received: from Anonymous.lariat.net (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.net@lariat.net [65.122.236.2]) by lariat.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00894; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 08:42:19 -0700 (MST) X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook renders your system susceptible to Internet worms. Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20051104083551.09139db0@lariat.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:42:08 -0700 To: Robert Watson From: Brett Glass In-Reply-To: <20051104093232.I9692@fledge.watson.org> References: <200511040039.RAA21926@lariat.net> <20051104093232.I9692@fledge.watson.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Nogobble, nogobble X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:42:22 -0000 At 02:36 AM 11/4/2005, Robert Watson wrote: >In practice, I've found the include mechanism extremely valuable >in keeping a number of variations on a single kernel synchronized. Don't get me wrong: an "include" mechanism can be useful for many reasons, not the least of which is that one can create blocks of directives one DOES want (for instance, for firewalling, bandwidth control, and/or Netgraph). But including a large number of devices, etc. and then having to disable them via "nogobble" directives is not the right way to go. It's error-prone and tedious, and it violates POLA. It can also make maintenance a nightmare (What if you're disabling a device that isn't there? How many files do you have to look through to determine what the final result of all the enabling, disabling, and overriding is? Especially since -- to my knowledge -- there's no way to print out the result of all of the directives that override one another?) >BTW, LINT does exist, but it is generated dynamically using "make >LINT" in the configuration directory. This combines both >cross-architecture and architecture-specific NOTES entries to >produce a kernel configuration. I hadn't tried this.... Thanks to the people who have pointed out that target in the Makefile. --Brett Glass