Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:18:26 -0600
From:      Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>
To:        "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Change to kernel+modules build approach
Message-ID:  <3F3C6D22.8050305@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030814.223212.102654511.imp@bsdimp.com>
References:  <20030814100248.GB88037@sunbay.com> <XFMail.20030814110100.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030814.223212.102654511.imp@bsdimp.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <XFMail.20030814110100.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
>             John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> writes:
> : 
> : On 14-Aug-2003 Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> : > On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 02:10:19AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> : >> Luoqi Chen wrote:
> : > [...]
> : >> >On the other hand, all modules should create all the opt_*.h files
> : >> >it needs when built individually. Add opt_ddb.h to nullfs's Makefile
> : >> >should fix the breakage.
> : >> >
> : >> Our kernel build system isn't set up to handle passing config options
> : >> to modules.  Various solutions to this have been proposed, but nothing
> : >> has appeared yet.  In 5.x, we document that modules will not work with
> : >> PAE.
> : >> 
> : > How does the below look?  This is basically a more generic implementation
> : > of Luoqi's idea, but for -CURRENT:
> : 
> : I would prefer something far more radical that would involve moving
> : all the module metadata to sys/conf (i.e. removing sys/modules) and
> : building all the modules based on a single kernel config file.
> 
> Does that mean that we're abandoning the idea that modules will work
> with all kernels?  I don't disagree with the metadata move, since it
> is duplicated in two places now and allows for some more interesting
> subsettting, but I'm concerned that our third party ISVs will need to
> generate N different modules for the system...
> 
> Warner

I can tell you first hand that this is painful.  However, in the case of
PAE, it's somewhat neccessary since certain fundamental types change
size.  I can envision solutions for this, but I'm not sure if they are
less painful than just dealing with multiple module builds.

Scott



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F3C6D22.8050305>