Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:28:06 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: hosokawa@itc.keio.ac.jp (HOSOKAWA Tatsumi) Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, hosokawa@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/pccard/pccardd pccardd.8 Message-ID: <199906300128.TAA11229@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199906300012.JAA09257@afs.ntc.mita.keio.ac.jp> References: <199906300001.SAA10894@mt.sri.com> <199906300012.JAA09257@afs.ntc.mita.keio.ac.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> > > >> > Modified files: > >> > usr.sbin/pccard/pccardd pccardd.8 > >> > Log: > >> > FreeBSD does supports LKM now. > >> > >> Actually in -current, LKM's are deprecated, so this should be backed out > >> (if it's what it appears to be). > > Sorry, I don't wanted to mean the FreeBSD LKM in 2.x, because it said > that, > > Since > .Nm FreeBSD > does not currently support loadable kernel modules, any > .Em irq > specifications in the configuration file must match the > .Nm config > entry for the kernel. > > Now we have kld, so I think that former sentence is not correct, and > irq specification in the config file does not have to match the kernel > config entry now. Am I wrong? Ahh, I understand. I read 'LKM' as the previous 'kernel module' system, not as a listing of a generic capability. I would not have used 'LKM' to describe the generic loadable kernel module because it implies a particular (deprecated) implementation. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906300128.TAA11229>