Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:57:38 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Coleman Kane <cokane@cokane.org> Cc: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>, current@freebsd.org, cokane@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: separate 3dfx_linux module Message-ID: <44033D92.2020009@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20060227175740.GA6099@pint.candc.home> References: <20060225140509.GC79616@comp.chem.msu.su> <44008314.8030205@samsco.org> <20060225201102.GA6936@pint.candc.home> <20060227121305.GO6435@comp.chem.msu.su> <20060227175740.GA6099@pint.candc.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Coleman Kane wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:13:05PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > >>On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 03:11:02PM -0500, Coleman Kane wrote: >> >>>Sounds good to me. In the event that you want to build this statically >>>into the kernel, doesn't the option still need to be available, >>>or are we talking about a device tdfxlinux ? >> >>It was exactly my point, too: the TDFX_LINUX option has to be there >>so that people still can compile device tdfx with Linux support into >>the main kernel file. > > > Not to mention so that they can omit said functionality if it is not > desired. I believe that the kmod by default compiles this in though. > > >>-- >>Yar Ok, I envisioned this as: device tdfx device tdfxlinux # Optional Linux compatibility I don't have a strong opinion on it, and I'll defer to whatever Coleman and Yar think is most appropriate. SCott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44033D92.2020009>