Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:32:00 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: "Wojciech A. Koszek" <wkoszek@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Alex Kozlov <spam@rm-rf.kiev.ua> Subject: Re: Improved INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE Message-ID: <20070324153108.P4956@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20070324135333.GA86105@FreeBSD.czest.pl> References: <20070324113739.GA41119@ravenloft.kiev.ua> <20070324135333.GA86105@FreeBSD.czest.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:37:39PM +0200, Alex Kozlov wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:19:49PM +0000, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
>>> Current implementation of INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE option has number of issues.
>>> Including it in MAC or SMP configurations will bring only text of this
>>> single file into the kernel file. We're not able to see configuration of
>>> running ("live") kernel, which could be helpful while tracking users'
>>> reports. You can't get easy to use file format, ready for configuration
>>> process.
>>>
>>> In my Perforce wkoszek_kconftxt branch:
>>>
>>> //depot/user/wkoszek/wkoszek_kconftxt/...
>>>
>>> I brought some modifications to existing config(8) and added system
>>> interface that would let us to see configuration of running kernel
>>> (currently -- via kern.conftxt sysctl), as well as other kernel file
>>> through config(8)'s -k option.
>>
>> By the way, any plan to include INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in GENERIC?
>
> I'd like to have this enabled by default, and I know there should be no
> strong objections.
I agree -- the memory used by it is very small compared to the amount of
memory in modern systems, and the potential administrative benefit is very
large. As long as it remains an option, the embedded folk can turn it off
easily.
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070324153108.P4956>