[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Path to kmods
Robert Elz wrote:
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:09:05 +0000
From: Andrew Doran <ad%NetBSD.org@localhost>
| Rather than waste any more time arguing
| about whether or not we should take the path of least resistance, I will
| resolve any differences that matter.
The case that interests me most would be making NFS a module (which along
with the other *fs's is, I would assume, a reasonable candidate), having a
"generic" compile of the NFS module (which would include defining INET6,
and INET) and then loading it into a kernel where one (or perhaps even both)
of INET6 and INET has been disabled at compile time.
Don't we get into a chicken and egg situation here?
The FS is a module, but we need the FS in order to load the module.
Main Index |
Thread Index |