Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:49:55 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: nate@root.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf options src/sys/i386/acpica Makefile acpi_wakecode.S src/sys/i386/conf NOTES Message-ID: <3FA0A683.40108@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20031029.222828.133432192.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20031029100945.F84859@root.org> <20031029.220629.102576808.imp@bsdimp.com> <20031029210945.A86732@root.org> <20031029.222828.133432192.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20031029210945.A86732@root.org> > Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> writes: > : On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > In message: <20031029100945.F84859@root.org> > : > Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> writes: > : > : On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > : > In message: <20031028235425.N82902@root.org> > : > : > Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> writes: > : > : > : Is this needed? options alone should be sufficient and acpi_wakeup.S > : > : > : should include opt_acpi.h. > : > : > > : > : > Not for kernel modules... > : > : > : > : Muagh. > : > : > : > : Ok, I'm starting a pot for whoever will finally implement the combined > : > : kernel modules and kernel config build tree. $10 US via PayPal. Care to > : > : contribute? > : > > : > Not for this. Options for kernel compilation should only really be > : > used for ABI issues. better to make this a tunable/sysctl. > : > : Non-sequitur. > > Not a non-sequitur. We're moving away from kernel options for things > that are tunable. I'm pointing out that this is the case here and we > should recognize it. Your desire for opt_*.h stuff is the > non-sequitur :-). > > : The issue still stands that module builds don't pull in the > : kernel config file, forcing duplication in make.conf. > > Not entirely true. We tend to build modules that have all the options > turned on. The world view is that opt_foo is used for big options to > leave in/out, not change minor runtime behavor. > > > : When building a > : kernel+modules, options in opt_*.h should be included in the module build. > > Agreed, it basically should. I'm just saying that this isn't a good > reason for it, and we should be fixing the right problem. > > : This is even under the 5.2-TODO as "Revised kld build infrastructure". I > : was just indicating that the number of times this has bothered me was > : worth $10 to the author of the fix. Maybe it's bothered enough others > : that it's worth a few hundred $ aggregate. :) > : > : I'll up it to $20. > > Patches have been posted for about 90% of the problem. > > However, the last 10% is hard. How do you deal with people that build > the modules outside of the kernel tree, so there is no kernel opt_*.h > files. This happens for third parties with drivers, as well as > developers making changes and loading modules. That's why things > haven't been committed: there's not been a good way proposed with how > to deal with this part of the problem. You'd still have the problem > with acpi if I cd to sys/modules/acpi and type make. And that's why I > harped on this needing to be a tunable/sysctl in my last message. > > Warner Getting this working is a big deal. PAE and MAC desperately need it, not to mention the general silliness of how we compile all modules now with SMP behavior. Please point out were the patches are that you alluded to and give some more details on what you see as the problems so that someone can pick up this task and run with it. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FA0A683.40108>