Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?

From: Jake Hamby (jhamby_at_anobject.com)
Date: 07/24/04

  • Next message: Peter Jeremy: "Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?" 
    Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:50:01 -0700
To: conrads@cox.net

    Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
    > On 21-Jul-2004 Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I'm sure this will become another bikeshed, so I suggest whoever came
    >>up with the idea to put up or shut up. People are interested in
    >>solutions, not suggestions.
    >
    >
    > Agreed. And the original proponent of the idea was me. I just wanted
    > to see if there was any willingness to even consider something like
    > this before I went and did a lot of work for nothing.
    >
    > Seems the general concensus is that most people are OK with the idea,
    > depending on the implementation.
    >
    > I'll be quiet now until/unless I can actually come up with something.
    > :-)

    If you are looking to improve the current build process, here's an idea
    someone could implement that would save a lot of people a lot of time...

    My biggest annoyance with building the kernel, compared to Linux, is
    that it insists on building all of the possible kernel modules, even
    though I only want to build the ones that make sense for my hardware.
    In Linux, despite the drawbacks of the menu-based config, it is nice
    being able to easily specify Yes, Module, or No for most options.

    The least intrusive approach would probably be to add a second config
    file (e.g. "MYKERNEL.modules") which would contain only the names of the
    modules to build in some make-friendly format. You could then modify
    config(8) to automatically copy this file, if it exists, to the object
    directory where it would be included by the appropriate Makefile. If no
    .modules file exists, then it would continue the current behavior of
    building all possible modules. 

    --
Jake Hamby
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Peter Jeremy: "Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?"

    Relevant Pages

    • C++ in kernel modules
      ... I need to port a linux 2.4 kernel module written in c++ to linux 2.6. ... I use the kbuild system, that doesn't support c++ for modules source ... Changing the linux header files I can now compile up to the include ... Is there a way to compile linux 2.6 kernel modules without using the ...
      (comp.os.linux.development.system)
    • Re: Find a files location on the disk/filesystem
      ... you'll have to develop kernel modules (if your kernel ... I see that you are posting from Linux. ... location on the filesystem to actually wipe the file contents. ... I'm thinking of writing a byte pattern in a 512 byte block. ...
      (comp.unix.programmer)
    • Re: Opinions about the NXP LPC3000
      ... a filesystem with kernel modules for ... The port also wasn't done by Phytec AIUI, but by/for NXP - a similar port ... The point is that if you want to use Linux on the LPC3180 you'll probably ... have to rewrite larger parts of u-boot and the kernel. ...
      (comp.arch.embedded)
    • Re: modules not found after kernel recompile
      ... Wim De Smetis reported to have said: ... removing kernel modules for Linux. ... {snip many pages} ...
      (Debian-User)