Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:30:49 +0100 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pc with 4G memory Message-ID: <48D2AC69.8040906@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <9bbcef730809180058u6d119a3exf11baf10bdced709@mail.gmail.com> References: <137523.41269.qm@web52108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <gairlk$flu$1@ger.gmane.org> <48D1F7AB.5010103@FreeBSD.org> <9bbcef730809180058u6d119a3exf11baf10bdced709@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ivan Voras wrote: > 2008/9/18 Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org>: >> Ivan Voras wrote: >>> * Use a PAE kernel, which works fairly well, but doesn't support kernel >>> modules (if you are not familiar with kernel modules then you probably >>> don't need them so ignore this). There's a pre-packaged kernel >>> configuration named "PAE" for this. >> PAE has supported kernel modules for quite a long time. > > KLDs are supported under PAE? Are the following lines in pae(4): > > """ > Since KLD modules are not compiled with the same options headers that the > kernel is compiled with, they must not be loaded into a kernel compiled > with the PAE option. > """ > > and these in the PAE configuration fille: > > """ > # Don't build modules with this kernel config, since they are not built with > # the correct options headers. > makeoptions NO_MODULES=yes > """ > > wrong? Not as such, but if you use buildkernel then modules *are* built with the correct options headers. There's nothing fundamental preventing PAE modules from working, and indeed they do. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48D2AC69.8040906>