Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 21:15:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Friedemann Becker <friedemann.becker@student.uni-tuebingen.de> To: <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: why not document load modules instead of recompiling kernel?? Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0304062113000.10665-100000@linux17.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0304062104370.10665-100000@linux17.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
sorry, this should have been addressed to the list, rather than you. I once again pressed "reply" and forgot to enter the right "To" address :)) On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Friedemann Becker wrote: > Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 21:12:42 +0200 (CEST) > From: Friedemann Becker <zxmxy33@mail.uni-tuebingen.de> > To: Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@ofug.org> > Cc: csujun@21cn.com, current@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: why not document load modules instead of recompiling kernel?? > > hmm..... ;-) > > [bitch] /boot/kernel> file /boot/kernel/dummynet.ko > /boot/kernel/dummynet.ko: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, > version 1 (FreeBSD), not stripped > > > most tasks can be done with kld, no need to recompile the kernel. > it's much much easier so a source of less errors. > I think too, kld should be mentioned appropriatly in the handbook. When > reading, it seemes like rebuilding the kernel is the best (or only) way to > configure the device drivers on the system, but I think in most cases, > kldloading would be better. > what else am I supposed to do with my modules? > > On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > > > Jun Su <csujun@yahoo.com> writes: > > > However, kldload ipfw also works. Why there isn;t any > > > words about this? Is loadable module not encourage? > > > > The module is built without any options (such as logging), and there > > is no kld for divert sockets or dummynet. > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.30.0304062113000.10665-100000>