Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:36:14 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Cc: bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Reducing the need to compile a custom kernel Message-ID: <20120211183614.00006079@unknown> In-Reply-To: <4f368a34.rIGc5BVL5Vu8OIjl%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <20120210145604.Horde.ewjpSpjmRSRPNSH0YRHxgAk@webmail.leidinger.net> <5B8B698D-6DC0-4334-8617-4EDEC7973D9D@lists.zabbadoz.net> <4f368a34.rIGc5BVL5Vu8OIjl%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 07:33:08 -0800 perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> wrote: > > > various parts of the network stack being loadable, which is not > > as easy as it sounds, especially making them unloadable again > > currently ... > > Seems to me unloadability does not matter to the case under > discussion, which is modularizing the kernel to reduce the Correct. > number of cases in which a custom kernel is needed. How much > real functional difference is there between "built in" and > "loaded permanently at boot"? For what I want to achieve: nearly zero compared to GENERIC (there will be differences, more when I present the result for discussion). Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120211183614.00006079>