Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 15:34:08 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: "Andreas Heijdendael" <andreas@heijdendael.nl> Cc: current@freebsd.org, sos@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ATA as modules -> panic Message-ID: <20050526153408.793d1d7d@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <001a01c561f1$db6c5610$04a8a8c0@windows> References: <20050526143836.0bf9dc5a@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <001a01c561f1$db6c5610$04a8a8c0@windows>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:53:03 +0200
"Andreas Heijdendael" <andreas@heijdendael.nl> wrote:
> Why would you want to remove the ata device from the kernel config in the
> first place?
Because I don't need it twice (as a module and in the kernel itself).
> Seems to me a bit like you're removing the wheels from a car just before you
> want to get onto the road.
No, I'm loading it as a module instead.
It's more like putting everything into the trunk before I get onto the
road instead of always having everything in it. But this is a bad
metaphor too, since I don't change the hardware that much that I _have_
to remove the ata code, it's just that it is possible (at least it looks
like it should be possible) and I want to try this out.
> Shouldn't the kernel be able to access the file system in order to even
> remotely read the loader.conf file?
> Removing the ata device from the kernel would prohibit this. Correct me if
> I'm wrong there.
The loader works independent from the kernel. So removing the ata code,
or anything at all, from the kernel doesn't change the way the loader
behaves.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
It is easier to fix Unix than to live with NT.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050526153408.793d1d7d>