Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:42:08 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Nogobble, nogobble Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051104083551.09139db0@lariat.org> In-Reply-To: <20051104093232.I9692@fledge.watson.org> References: <200511040039.RAA21926@lariat.net> <20051104093232.I9692@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 02:36 AM 11/4/2005, Robert Watson wrote: >In practice, I've found the include mechanism extremely valuable >in keeping a number of variations on a single kernel synchronized. Don't get me wrong: an "include" mechanism can be useful for many reasons, not the least of which is that one can create blocks of directives one DOES want (for instance, for firewalling, bandwidth control, and/or Netgraph). But including a large number of devices, etc. and then having to disable them via "nogobble" directives is not the right way to go. It's error-prone and tedious, and it violates POLA. It can also make maintenance a nightmare (What if you're disabling a device that isn't there? How many files do you have to look through to determine what the final result of all the enabling, disabling, and overriding is? Especially since -- to my knowledge -- there's no way to print out the result of all of the directives that override one another?) >BTW, LINT does exist, but it is generated dynamically using "make >LINT" in the configuration directory. This combines both >cross-architecture and architecture-specific NOTES entries to >produce a kernel configuration. I hadn't tried this.... Thanks to the people who have pointed out that target in the Makefile. --Brett Glass
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.2.5.6.2.20051104083551.09139db0>