Re: Custom kernels, config(1), and modules

[David Laight <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost>]

On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 05:45:35PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 05:22:47PM +0200, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 05:01:37PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 01:43:42AM +0200, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> > > > Why not go all the way directly?  Everything that can be built as a
> > > > module will be built as such, and only included in the static kernel if
> > > > the user wants it.  Isn't it what FreeBSD does?
> > > 
> > > No, I think the GENERIC kernel on FreeBSD still includes most of the
> > > drivers etc.
> > 
> > That's a different thing.  I'd expect ours to still keep as much as
> > possible (or the boot loader would have to load all the modules which
> > is essentially the same).  The point is to build the .kobj no matter
> > what (granted, there should be a way to tell "don't build those
> > modules") and include it in the static kernel if there if a config
> > line for it.
> 
> Right, that's something different. It was always a bit obnoxious in
> FreeBSD to get all kernel modules, essentially building the same code
> twice. Let's not go that route please :-)

Surely the best plan is to compile the kernel core, then all the modules,
then link up different kernels containing different sets of modules
(or maybe different kernel cores).
This ought to let most of the XEN kernels be linked from a single
compilation.
(Of course, many of the kernel options need localising to only the
affected C files first...)

        David

-- 
David Laight: david%l8s.co.uk@localhost