Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:55:19 +0900 From: Kazutaka YOKOTA <yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp> To: peter@netplex.com.au, sos@FreeBSD.ORG, des@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp Subject: Death to LKM screen savers? (was: Re: HEADS UP: i386 a.out LKM support now an option..) Message-ID: <199901240255.LAA24094@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 18 Jan 1999 03:25:14 %2B0800." <199901171925.DAA06456@spinner.netplex.com.au> References: <199901171925.DAA06456@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
What if we declare death to LKM screen savers and remove them from the source tree? After all KLD screen savers are working well. Kazu >As of a few minutes ago, I committed some changes that: >1: make the LKM code use the common VFS and syscall registration routines >2: make an 'options LKM' option. >3: build an 'lkm' loadable kld module > >This means that if you are still using an a.out kernel and are loading >LKM's specifically, you either need to add 'options LKM' to your config, >or do a 'kldload lkm' to load the /dev/lkm support routines. [...] >However, the thought has occurred on many occasions that it might be an >idea to make a stand on this and remove the LKM build support. It will >clean up a few interfaces. If this doesn't happen for 3.1, it's definately >on my agenda for after the branch. Converting the common LKM's to kld >modules is pretty easy, and even the ones with custom load/unload code are >not too hard. I'd be interested to get a feeling for whether this should >be done for 3.1 or later. (Remember, OSS have a KLD version now for 3.0). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901240255.LAA24094>