[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: GENERIC kernel "modules" implementation info?
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, yancm%sdf.lonestar.org@localhost wrote:
>> Can someone please point me to the documentation or just explain how
>> GENERIC should work for modular support of FFS? (and maybe a
>> of what is meant / envisioned by a modular GENERIC kernel?)
> Maybe this helps:
Yes, that helps a little, but... I appear to have all available kernel
modules in /stand/i386/5.99.22.
What controls which modules get compiled/installed into /stand
/i386/5.99.22? Apparently not the kernel config????
What I'm not getting is that in the GENERIC kernel config, all file
systems, including ffs, are commented out. I still got the error message
about not having ffs even though the FFS lkm is in /stand/i386/5.99.22.
Once I uncommented the: "file-system FFS" line in the GENERIC kernel, it
1) Maybe this is what I was supposed to do, but if so, how is that
"modular"? Or once I uncommented this, did I just compile ffs into the
kernel in a monolithic fashion?
2) What does modularization mean? How else would the kernel know I need FFS?
3) Shouldn't GENERIC work on just about any system out of the box? The
observed behavior seems very different from what I'm used to with NetBSD
in the past.
I used the build.sh commands:
./build.sh -O ../obj -T ../tools -u tools
./build.sh -O ../obj -T ../tools -u kernel=XPERIMENT
./build.sh -O ../obj -T ../tools -u distribution
./build.sh -O ../obj -T ../tools -u install=/
Should I use something different now?
NOTE: XPERIMENT is my modified GENERIC kernel
Main Index |
Thread Index |