Worked like a charm, thanks...have fxp0 and procfs removed from my kernel
config and using modules...
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > Just to confirm, *technically*, I should just have to comment out the
> > options PROCFS in my kernel config, reb
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> Just to confirm, *technically*, I should just have to comment out the
> options PROCFS in my kernel config, rebuild and reboot and since procfs
> isn't in the kernel, it will look for it as a module?
As long as the module is up to date.
--
Daniel C. Sobral
>
> On 08-Oct-99 Mike Smith wrote:
> > > Yes.. That should work fine..
> > > In fact you can have all your FS's as modules except what / is..
> > You can have / too, as long as you load it with the loader. 8)
>
> And providing / is UFS because thats all the loader understands (?)
No, it could
On 08-Oct-99 Mike Smith wrote:
> > Yes.. That should work fine..
> > In fact you can have all your FS's as modules except what / is..
> You can have / too, as long as you load it with the loader. 8)
And providing / is UFS because thats all the loader understands (?)
---
Daniel O'Connor softwa
>
> On 07-Oct-99 The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > Just to confirm, *technically*, I should just have to comment out the
> > options PROCFS in my kernel config, rebuild and reboot and since procfs
> > isn't in the kernel, it will look for it as a module?
>
> Yes.. That should work fine..
> In fact
On 07-Oct-99 The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> Just to confirm, *technically*, I should just have to comment out the
> options PROCFS in my kernel config, rebuild and reboot and since procfs
> isn't in the kernel, it will look for it as a module?
Yes.. That should work fine..
In fact you can have al
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> On 07-Oct-99 Greg Lehey wrote:
> > Well, the standard way to load a kld is with kldload(1) or kldload(2).
> > I don't know if procfs works properly like this, though.
>
> Well I would assume (aha) that when mount cannot find procfs in the list of
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > Figuring one of the things a friend of mine raves about Linux for is their
> > kld's, I'd start playing with ours...
> >
> > Looking in /modules, I saw 'procfs', so, cool, a place to start...remove
> > "options PROCF
The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Figuring one of the things a friend of mine raves about Linux for is their
> kld's, I'd start playing with ours...
[ Going off on a slight tangent ... ]
You may have gone beyond this, but a good introduction to klds is
an article called, "Atta
> The network ones, for instance. No more need to put in the device lines
> in the kernel configuration file, it will be automagically loaded by
> ifconfig. I don't know if this is working already or not, though.
It works in -CURRENT for most PCI network devices (`de' is one notable
exception).
On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 03:00:52 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> checked the kld man page, and nothing in there appears to be
> appropriate...
You should have checked the SEE ALSO secion of the manpage (I wonder
whether Ruslan Ermilov is reading?) *grin*
SEE ALSO
kldfind(2), kldfirstmod(2
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> Figuring one of the things a friend of mine raves about Linux for is their
> kld's, I'd start playing with ours...
>
> Looking in /modules, I saw 'procfs', so, cool, a place to start...remove
> "options PROCFS" from kernel config, rebuild, install and reboot ...
>
>
On 07-Oct-99 Greg Lehey wrote:
> Well, the standard way to load a kld is with kldload(1) or kldload(2).
> I don't know if procfs works properly like this, though.
Well I would assume (aha) that when mount cannot find procfs in the list of
FS's the kernel knows about it would try and load it ju
> Well, the standard way to load a kld is with kldload(1) or kldload(2).
> I don't know if procfs works properly like this, though.
Procfs works just fine:
[groovy] /usr/src.With_secure_NFS # kldstat
Id Refs AddressSize Name
17 0xc010 1a10cc kernel.debug
21 0xc09c1000 300
On Thursday, 7 October 1999 at 3:00:52 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> Figuring one of the things a friend of mine raves about Linux for is their
> kld's, I'd start playing with ours...
Yes, it's funny how the Linuxers rave about loadable modules. It's a
good idea, but I don't see anything
On 07-Oct-99 The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> Looking in /modules, I saw 'procfs', so, cool, a place to start...remove
> "options PROCFS" from kernel config, rebuild, install and reboot ...
> so, I figure that I somehow have to tell the kernel to load that module?
Well its a kld.. You don't have to
Figuring one of the things a friend of mine raves about Linux for is their
kld's, I'd start playing with ours...
Looking in /modules, I saw 'procfs', so, cool, a place to start...remove
"options PROCFS" from kernel config, rebuild, install and reboot ...
crashes...
so, I figure that I somehow
17 matches
Mail list logo
