Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:48:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: gallatin@cs.duke.edu Subject: Re: Change to kernel+modules build approach Message-ID: <16189.7417.798216.977283@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030815134026.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20030814.224014.08945805.imp@bsdimp.com> <XFMail.20030815134026.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin writes: > > No, generic modules would always work with all kernels except for > exceptional cases like PAE (unavoidable, really), and MUTEX_PROFILING > (this is a debugging thing, so ISV's wouldn't need to ship modules > with that turned on). All this would add is the ability to build > modules optimized for your current kernel. If this is not super > desired (which I wouldn't mind), then I think we should take the > modules out of /boot/kernel and put them in /boot/modules or some such. > I do want to get the metadata down to one copy somehow though. YES! YES! I'd be very much in favor of totally decoupling the modules from the kernel. In fact, once we've done that, we can move the kernel back to /kernel where it belongs, and /boot/modules can become /modules ;) BTW, what, exactly, changes size with PAE? Everything? Or would a driver that just used things like busdma, mutexes, interrupts, etc, be OK assuming the busdma interface were made so that they were always 64-bit? Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16189.7417.798216.977283>