From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Apr 28 13: 6:44 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9426337B72D for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:06:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA21258 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 22:06:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id WAA04387 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 22:06:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6001737B72D; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:06:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04515; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:05:52 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208) via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAA5iaiYi; Fri Apr 28 13:05:47 2000 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA27418; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:05:48 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <200004282005.NAA27418@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: How about building modules along with the kernel? To: msmith@freebsd.org (Mike Smith) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 20:05:47 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth), doconnor@gsoft.com.au (Daniel O'Connor), freebsd-arch@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200004270629.XAA00679@mass.cdrom.com> from "Mike Smith" at Apr 26, 2000 11:29:10 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > > The loader can (and does) already read UFS.. > > > > > > > > It can read files in and load them into arbitarily named sections in the > > > > kernel, and other good things :) > > > > > > But what about JFS, E2FS, KFS, etc. ? > > > > Historical UNIX implementations have handled this with a > > flat filesystem, usually called "stand", where the kernel and > > any modules needed to access the locally instantiated filesystem > > implementations are installed. > > > > NT's boot loader approaches this the same way, though their > > "stand" is actually a FAT partition. > > We have this already; it's called /, and the format is UFS. > > If you want to get really anal, change the module search path to include > somewhere under /boot, and make that a FAT filesystem (we support those > as well). The reason that these other systems use a separate filesystem > of a simpler type is that their bootloaders are _lame_. Ours isn't, and > it doesn't need a new filesystem type just to cater to its' braindeath. > > Either use FAT or UFS, or teach the loader (libstand) about your new > filesystem types. If you're going to implement a filesystem for FreeBSD, > writing loader support for it is just about the most trivial part - > probably on par with the manpage. I think the issue is being raised in the context of dual boot machines; ifit weren't, then "JFS, E2FS, KFS, etc." would have no relevence, as you say. I think you are missing the context here. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message