tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

MODULAR: Module extensions


I see that the new modular framework still uses .o as the extensions for modules. In my opinion, these are "suboptimal" because they are confusing. Extensions are something for the user, not the computer, so they should be descriptive enough to be useful. When I see ".o", I think of a temporary compilation file that can be deleted, not something that should be kept around for proper system operation.

Could we rename the new modules to have a different extension? One possibility could be .ko as used in Linux, or .kmod to match the name of If we want to be descriptive, .kmod is better as it clearly states it is a kernel module, not a kernel object (which could also be thought as of something related to the compilation).

Slightly related to this: with the current and .o extensions, it is impossible to build a foo.o kernel module if any of its source files is named foo.c. E.g. sys/modules/example is currently unbuidable:

> nbmake-i386
nbmake: Graph cycles through example.o
nbmake: don't know how to make example.4. Stop

nbmake: stopped in /Volumes/NetBSD/src/sys/modules/example
> will try to compile foo.c to foo.o and then try to link all .o files into foo.o. Oops, but foo.o is already defined to be foo.c's object, so we have a dependency loop. Having a different extension for the final file easily fixes this.

Objections about the change to .kmod?


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index