On May 29, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Mel Flynn wrote:

On Friday 29 May 2009 20:38:54 Steven Schlansker wrote:

And not to be argumentative, but sys/conf/NOTES does not really
provide any information.  The only comment explains what the device
does, not why it wouldn't be enabled in GENERIC.  Is there any reason
it could not be? (For those of us who want to use freebsd-update, for
example)

Choice of the project. You'd have to ask on -current, -pf or - hackers for a more authoritative answer, but my guess would be that 80% of the people using this feature in production have a highly optimized kernel and wouldn't be
using GENERIC to begin with.

Hm. I was actually under the impression that you wouldn't gain much by compiling your own kernel (except for maybe some disk space). Is that not the case? Is there a strong reason to compile your own kernel for "production" machines? The discussion online is not conclusive (then again I'll probably just get contradictory opinions again here!)

I'm just thinking that since pf is included in the base distribution, there's enough people that use it that it's worth including. It seems that pfsync would be a negligible addon, and much more attractive due to the lack of support for building it as a module.

Anyway, if I have further questions about pfsync in particular I guess I'll go ask -pf. I may have some free time coming up; maybe I'll even try my hand at hacking on the kernel and see if I can't make it build as a module... (would that be a semi-reasonable project for someone with light familiarity with kernel coding? I've coded up Linux kernel modules before, but haven't worked in-tree on a "real" OS)

Best,
Steven
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to