Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 03:08:06 -0600 From: Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> Cc: Erich Dollansky <oceanare@pacific.net.sg>, "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NTFS in GENERIC: opt-in or opt-out? Message-ID: <790a9fff0901190108r4eb3232bqfc6a0c8af8cd7c71@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49743B52.5040108@FreeBSD.org> References: <49742ADA.5080509@FreeBSD.org> <1232350919.2322.3.camel@P2120.somewherefaraway.com> <49743B52.5040108@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> wrote: > Erich Dollansky wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 23:25 -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am reviewing differences between amd64 and i386 GENERIC kernels and >>> noticed that for some unclear reason we ship amd64 GENERIC with NTFS module >>> compiled in, while i386 without it. IMHO both should match. The question is >>> whether NTFS should be i386 way (opt in) or amd64 way (opt >> >> the Windows file system? >> >> I would use opt-in as most people will not need it. > > Any particular reason why not? Memory is cheap, 100-200KB of extra kernel > code doesn't really matter today, while NTFS is probably the most widespread > filesystem after MSDOS. Therefore supporting it in the GENERIC out of the > box even in the read-only mode (our NTFS driver is read-only AFAIK) could > benefit many users. > I have been using FreeBSD/amd64, and my kernel doesn't include the NTFS filesystem complied in. Instead, I let the mount command load the ntfs.ko kernel module when I need read access to my NTFS filesystems. Since a buildkernel will install the ntfs.ko kernel module by default, their is no need to have the NTFS filesystem complied into GENERIC. Scot
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?790a9fff0901190108r4eb3232bqfc6a0c8af8cd7c71>