Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:58:49 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@altavista.net> To: Donn Miller <dmmiller@cvzoom.net> Cc: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stale modules (Re: panic in the morning) Message-ID: <38FF5369.7BE907CA@altavista.net> References: <20000419162806.A8502@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004191814410.73491-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <20000420112449.C51522@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <38FF44A6.F7C3C20B@cvzoom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Donn Miller wrote:
> Stijn Hoop wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 06:15:55PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > > make world doesn't build a kernel. Making a kernel doesn't build
> > > modules. This bit me again the other day when updating, as well - panic at
> > > boot when loading a stale linux.ko.
> >
> > \begin{newbie question}
> > So why aren't the modules built with the kernel instead of with the world?
> > \end{newbie question}
>
> Good question. With Linux, you have the option of building the
> modules when you compile the kernel by doing a "make modules". I
> think maybe we could use a similar approach. For example, I think we
> should put an option into config(8) where we can choose the modules we
> want to build. Like, we add the keyword "module" somewhere to the
> driver we want to add as a modules. Then, we could add an option
> "make modules" and "make install_modules" so that they could be
> built/installed with the kernel.
>
> After all, modules ARE a part of the kernel...
Looks like *really* nice idea. This would allow to solve "stale modules" problem
at minimal cost.
-Maxim
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?38FF5369.7BE907CA>