Subject: Re: Request for comments: let config(1) generate LKMs
To: Hiroyuki Bessho <>
From: Bill Stouder-Studenmund <>
List: tech-toolchain
Date: 09/18/2007 13:08:51
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 01:19:18AM +0900, Hiroyuki Bessho wrote:
>   In the linux camp, building a module of a device driver (or a
> subsystem of the kernel) is very easy and just mark [M] instead of [X]
> in menuconfig (as far as the device driver code supports module and
> in-kernl forms).  What I want is to do the same thing with config(1)
> and config(5).

I think this is a good goal. I think this discussion is revolving around=20
the fact that some of the things we do now don't really fit well in an=20
LKM-based world. And/or they aren't necessarily what we want to do in an=20
LKM-based world. :-)

I think though that if we start to do this, we should not stop at drivers.=
I'll follow up to other messages, but I think some of the issues you're=20
running into go away if we modularize more (if not most) of the kernel.

Take care,


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)