Re: Path to kmods

[Andrew Doran <ad%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 06:49:38PM +0100, 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.

ELF objects necessary for bootstrap are loaded by the boot loader (including
the kernel).

Andrew