Re: Path to kmods

[Matt Thomas <matt%3am-software.com@localhost>]

On Nov 13, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:

> Robert Elz wrote:
> >     Date:        Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:09:05 +0000
> >     From:        Andrew Doran <ad%NetBSD.org@localhost>
> >     Message-ID:  <20081113150905.GD8195%hairylemon.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.

Unless the kernel is really an archive (pax or binutils) which consists
of the kernel and various file systems and boot drivers as archive  
members).

It's self-contained but everything exists for boot.  Once root is  
mounted,
the unused module can be discarded from memory and that memory  
reclaimed.