From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 1 22:54:18 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710C5106566B for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 22:54:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2138FC0A for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 22:54:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p21MXJKM056795; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:33:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id p21MXIK3056792; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:33:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:33:18 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: Jason Helfman In-Reply-To: <20110301204124.GD76063@eggman.experts-exchange.com> Message-ID: References: <4D6C78D3.5090803@telus.net> <198718A4-4A82-4FDB-A8F6-400F132A649E@gsoft.com.au> <201103010800.35666.jhb@freebsd.org> <4D6D50AC.701@telus.net> <20110301204124.GD76063@eggman.experts-exchange.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 01 Mar 2011 15:33:19 -0700 (MST) Cc: Carl , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: listing all modules compiled into a kernel instance X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:54:18 -0000 On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, Jason Helfman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 12:01:48PM -0800, Carl thus spake: >> >> I can explicitly include ucom in a kernel by adding "device ucom" in the >> configuration file, in which case it would call DRIVER_MODULE(), right? >> That would then make it appear in the "kldstat -v" list? So why is it a >> driver when it's done explicitly, but not a driver when done implicitly? >> That makes no sense to me since the functionality doesn't change. IMHO, >> this is a bug that needs to be fixed, not just for ucom but any >> implicitly included driver. >> >> Who should submit a bug report? > > There was a documentation bug that was put in regarding the ucom device, and > it was to update the device name in the documentation. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=155074 > > I don't know if a PR is still required, but this may be worth a look first. usb_quirk.4 appears to be a copy and edit of ucom.4. The device name edit was missed, so it still referred to ucom. I don't think this affects what you're talking about.