Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:53:16 +0000 From: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, Michael Lucas <mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org>, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New article Message-ID: <38DB8F6C.24A54CE6@originative.co.uk> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003231730070.51855-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <38DAC73D.80287765@originative.co.uk> <38DB29F1.5695EED7@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote: > > Paul Richards wrote: > > > > All you really need for INVARIANTS is a make variable, config can go > > away without us having to worry about that. > > Well, I'd like any of these unavoidable kernel configuration options to > be saved somewhere, so I won't need typing them again and again. > Whatever file I save that too, it will be a kernel configuration file, > by definition. :-) Yeah, config(8) can go, but that's beside the point, > really. I don't think INVARIANTS is the same sort of information as "pseudo-device bpf". The latter is part of the kernel configuration, in that it determines the features built in to the kernel. The former is a compilation option and while I agree that you'd want somewhere to store those options they should be regarded as the same sort of information as the compiler optimization flags rather than a parameter of the kernel configuration. Whether you build a kernel with INVARIANTS or not is like deciding whether to build it with -g. With a fully dynamic kernel configuration you wouldn't expect to be able to change the compiler optimization after the fact but you would expect to be able to change the device drivers or table sizes. I don't really disagree with you but I think that things like INVARIANTS aren't what's generally considered when we're thinking about kernel configuration. There would still need to be a way to specify compile options somewhere though. It might not be a bad idea to think about that now, as a step on the way to dynamic configuration. It would probably be fairly easy to move the compiler directives out of the kernel config file to somewhere picked up by the make process. It'll need to be done eventually and it's pretty easy to do it now. Paul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38DB8F6C.24A54CE6>