Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:10:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <tim@ppp6575.on.sympatico.ca> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Tim Vanderhoek <tim@ppp6575.on.sympatico.ca>, hoek@hwcn.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fnord0: disabled, not probed. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971012170418.2711C-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <199710122057.NAA21013@usr05.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 12 Oct 1997, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Obviously, if each driver lived in a different group of ELF sections,
> an ELF image archiver could remove drivers at will (assuming a fix
> to the linker set code for this), and the problem would be resolved.
> This seems to be the "right way"(tm) to do the fix. Why encourage
Indeed. And, from this point of view, both
if(bootverbose)printf("disabled") and printf("disabled") are
kludges.
Given the choice between two kludges, the one which waits for you
to find it would be nicer than the one which screams about itself
to you on every boot...
But, really, there's not a big difference. Overflow the screen
with useless "disabled" messages and potentially miss an
important advisory, vs. forever running a kernel with a ball and
chain tied to its feet.
(Or maybe just a ball chained to its feet? Hm.)
--
tIM...HOEk
OPTIMIZATION: the process of using many one-letter variables names
hoping that the resultant code will run faster.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971012170418.2711C-100000>