Re: Path to kmods

[Johnny Billquist <bqt%softjar.se@localhost>]

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.

        Johnny