On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, The Anarcat wrote: TA>On Fri Mar 21, 2003 at 07:16:58PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: TA>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 05:39:07PM +0200, Nikolay Y. Orlyuk wrote: TA>> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 06:32:17PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: TA>> > > Hi there, TA>> > > TA>> > > Excuse my stupid question, but I seem to have no time to do the TA>> > > investigation by myself right now so I'd be glad to receive a brief TA>> > > answer from someone who has the information. TA>> > > TA>> > > As far as I can see, kernel modules should be built along with the TA>> > > kernel for the only reason of keeping their mutual interfaces in TA>> > > sync, has a source file defining such an interface changed. Is TA>> > > there currently no way to go further and affect a kernel module's TA>> > > built-in features with kernel config file options, besides modifying TA>> > > makefiles in /sys/modules? TA>> > I think this isn't so. I have been already tried to compile some modules TA>> > without compiling kernel and this trye has successful result, but without TA>> > change options. TA>> > I think modules must be build with same or less imports and same or more export to be correct TA>> > for loading. TA>> TA>> Yeah, it's all right to compile modules w/o the kernel, but that's TA>> not exactly what I was asking about. My question was whether "option TA>> FOO" lines from a kernel configuration file could influence modules. TA> TA>I'm pretty sure they do. A great example is IPFIREWALL_* options: if TA>they don't influence the module, I think we have a problem. ;)
How should they? The Makefiles for modules usually create the option files that normally are create by config options themself and set the options to 1. harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
