Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:47:53 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: martin@mullet.se Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /sys/conf is getting unwieldy to handle... Message-ID: <20041004.094753.106215007.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <41614235.5080704@mullet.se> References: <1688.1096884897@critter.freebsd.dk> <200410041241.04608.max@love2party.net> <41614235.5080704@mullet.se>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
In message: <41614235.5080704@mullet.se>
Martin Nilsson <martin@mullet.se> writes:
: Max Laier wrote:
: > Yet, there is a bit more to it. It would (imo) also involve some thinking
: > about the way we build modules (there is a TODO item "revised kld build
: > infrastructure" that seems to cover that part)
:
: Are there any really good reasons why we build lots of modules and most
: users uses kernels with nearly everything compiled in. Isn't it time to
: make GENERIC really small, just include what can't be loaded as modules
: and make loader.conf and the rc scripts load the rest? Of course this
: requres a stable module ABI and no use of options that break this.
I've been running this way for about 18-20 months. Except for
sometimes forgetting to include acpi in the module list, it works
great. Well, as long as I don't take short-cuts like 'NO_MODULES'
when I'm developing a new kernel. However, I'm not building
third-party binary packages at the same time, which is the real
kicker.
I believe that we already have an 'include' statement, so someone
could easily try the include stuff on a prototype basis w/o any real
hassle. That would let us get experience with how good or bad phk's
ideas are. I suspect they are overly simplistic because they are too
lumpy: they include too many drivers that a typical custom kernel
would want to get rid of. They just make GENERIC look nicer, but I'm
not sure how well it will help things.
Warner
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041004.094753.106215007.imp>