[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Path to kmods
Matt Thomas wrote:
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>
| Rather than waste any more time arguing
| about whether or not we should take the path of least resistance,
| resolve any differences that matter.
The case that interests me most would be making NFS a module (which
with the other *fs's is, I would assume, a reasonable candidate),
"generic" compile of the NFS module (which would include defining INET6,
and INET) and then loading it into a kernel where one (or perhaps
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
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.
Setup as a ramdisk at boot, then? But if so, we need atleast that fs in
Otherwise I believe we're talking about having modules, which are in the
kernel at boot, but which can be unloaded later on.
That would be a nice thing, btw.
Main Index |
Thread Index |