Re: make.conf syntax question (MODULES_OERRRIDE)
Colin J. Raven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I was (erroneously) trying to do was trim down the kernel to its absolute minimum size and maximum performance, my thought was if I don't need it, don't load it. Which makes sense. Don't load it is not the same as don't build it, though. I guess the logical question follows thoughwhy build all those modules (500 and something if I recall correctly) if they're unused and not necessary? Because the cost of building them is low, and the benefit of having the module when you mistakenly remove something from the kernel that you wanted is high. It's kind of like keeping good backups; most of the bits on my backups wouldn't be needed even if I was restoring from scratch, but it's still a good idea to start with a full backup of *everything*. It seems counter intuitive somehow, but probably I'm not seeing the issue in its proper light. It's correct for the kernel itself. You don't need to build most functionality into the kernel unless you're going to use it on every boot. [If you're only going to use it occasionally, and you can load it from a module, you might as well do that.] For a typical desktop user, though, I recommend just building all of the modules all of the time, and not risking being caught without one you need. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
make.conf syntax question (MODULES_OERRRIDE)
I'm considering *not* loading unecessary modules in a new kernel, so I need to ask what seems like some dumb questions. In the kernel config file (MYKERNEL in this case) does commenting out stuff there stop some modules from loading? So for example if I comment out SCSI support are the relevant modules for that built, or not built when compiling the new kernel? It seems that the logical answer is they're not built if you comment them out yet I have no way of knowing if that instinct call is right or not. The second question concerns the make.conf MODULES_OVERRIDE option syntax. Is the syntax: a) MODULES_OVERRIDE = blah MODULES_OVERRIDE = blah_blah MODULES_OVERRIDE = blah_blah_bluh and so on until every one you want built is listed OR b) MODULES_OVERRIDE = /usr/src/sys/modules/blah MODULES_OVERRIDE = /usr/src/sys/modules/blah_blah MODULES_OVERRIDE = /usr/src/sys/modules/blah_blah_blah OR can it be: d) MODULES_OVERRIDE = module_a module_b module_c etc or finally: e) is there an include syntax with maybe a plain one-module-per-line file that could be inserted. Something like MODULES_OVERRIDE = /path/to/come/include_file.inc with include_file.inc having something maybe like this: foo bar goo gar where 'foo', 'bar' etc. are modules Sorry, but syntax is most often my weakest point and why things sometimes don't work the way I expect them to. Regards TIA, -Colin ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: make.conf syntax question (MODULES_OERRRIDE)
Colin J. Raven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm considering *not* loading unecessary modules in a new kernel, so I need to ask what seems like some dumb questions. In the kernel config file (MYKERNEL in this case) does commenting out stuff there stop some modules from loading? So for example if I comment out SCSI support are the relevant modules for that built, or not built when compiling the new kernel? It seems that the logical answer is they're not built if you comment them out yet I have no way of knowing if that instinct call is right or not. By default, all of the modules are built whether you use them or not. That has nothing to do with the kernel config file; if you compile an option directly into the kernel, you don't need to load a module in order to use that functionality. The second question concerns the make.conf MODULES_OVERRIDE option syntax. Is the syntax: Don't bother with that option at all; your belief that you need it is based on your incorrect understanding of what modules (as opposed to kernel definitions) do. Other than a little bit extra build time, there's rarely any reason for an ordinary user to *not* build all of the modules every time. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: make.conf syntax question (MODULES_OERRRIDE)
On Feb 4 at 12:55, Lowell Gilbert launched this into the bitstream: Colin J. Raven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm considering *not* loading unecessary modules in a new kernel, so I need to ask what seems like some dumb questions. In the kernel config file (MYKERNEL in this case) does commenting out stuff there stop some modules from loading? So for example if I comment out SCSI support are the relevant modules for that built, or not built when compiling the new kernel? It seems that the logical answer is they're not built if you comment them out yet I have no way of knowing if that instinct call is right or not. By default, all of the modules are built whether you use them or not. That has nothing to do with the kernel config file; if you compile an option directly into the kernel, you don't need to load a module in order to use that functionality. The second question concerns the make.conf MODULES_OVERRIDE option syntax. Is the syntax: Don't bother with that option at all; your belief that you need it is based on your incorrect understanding of what modules (as opposed to kernel definitions) do. Other than a little bit extra build time, there's rarely any reason for an ordinary user to *not* build all of the modules every time. Thank you! Undoubtedly you have saved me a considerable amount of time and apparently unecessary work. What I was (erroneously) trying to do was trim down the kernel to its absolute minimum size and maximum performance, my thought was if I don't need it, don't load it. I guess the logical question follows thoughwhy build all those modules (500 and something if I recall correctly) if they're unused and not necessary? It seems counter intuitive somehow, but probably I'm not seeing the issue in its proper light. Many thanks for your advice and guidance. Regards, -Colin -- Colin J. Raven FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE - http://www.FreeBSD.org - There can be only One Fri Feb 4 19:18:00 CET 2005 7:18PM up 15 days, 8:08, 6 users, load averages: 0.03, 0.01, 0.00 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
