Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 23:58:13 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@efn.org> To: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bus/Processor specific I/O methods - was Re: Beginning SPARC port Message-ID: <19971214235813.15283@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <199712150750.XAA03236@resnet.uoregon.edu>; from Darren Reed on Mon, Dec 15, 1997 at 06:50:36PM %2B1100 References: <19971214225639.55532@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> <199712150750.XAA03236@resnet.uoregon.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Darren Reed scribbled this message on Dec 15: > In some mail from John-Mark Gurney, sie said: > > > > hmm... here's a question for you... > > how much kernel work have you done in making the freebsd kernel as small > > as possible?? with the changes that I'm working on... the ONLY things > > neccessary in a static kernel will be the boot device (be it network > > card or hard disk), and file system for modules... then the rest will > > be dynamicly loaded... > > Well, the Solaris2 kernel is 600k (/platform/sun4m/kernel/unix) for 2.5.1, > but /platform/sun4m is 4.5M in size with another 1.5M in /usr/kernel. > Personally, I find as the number of files required to boot into single > user increases, the greater the chance of shit happening on a bad crash > and the system becoming unable to boot itself. Personally, I think that > the boot device and root fs should always be "in" the kernel so that if > someone has nuked all your modules, you can still get up into single user > mode. umm... that's EXACTLY what I said...: "the ONLY things neccessary in a static kernel will be the boot device (be it network card or hard disk), and file system" now I did add for modules which might of confused you, but unless freebsd's boot process changes significantly, there isn't going to be easy support for loading each neccessary "module" to get into single usermode... plus, I don't want to think about stuff like that for the x86.. :) > I think that whilst the above goal is interesting (and perhaps worthwhile), > there are already problems which need to be solved for LKM's which aren't, > as yet, such as merging LKM symbols so that gdb on the kernel is sane and > fixing up crash dumps.. who care's about LKM's?? LKM's as they now are should just die... I'm working on replacing it with the kld system (which once fully working looks like it will be renamed to LKM)... and this to some extent should already be supported... thought I haven't personally tried it yet myself... seems you've forgotten that this is a volunteer project... I'm doing this because I choose to, not because your paying me to, (thought if you need something worked on, I wouldn't mind getting paid)... -- John-Mark Gurney Modem/FAX: +1 541 683 6954 Cu Networking Live in Peace, destroy Micro$oft, support free software, run FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971214235813.15283>