Re: Is it possible to make subr_acl_nfs4 and subr_acl_posix1e disabled?
Adrian Chadd writes: > Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes: > > I would be very annoyed if it were no longer possible to netboot > > GENERIC... > I don't want to break that. :) I Just don't want to compile it in > unless I'm using NFS/ZFS, and on my 4MB flash boards I'm not booting > w/ NFS compiled in statically.. Sorry, I just realized that I read the text of your message but not the subject; I thought you were proposing to remove NFS from GENERIC. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is it possible to make subr_acl_nfs4 and subr_acl_posix1e disabled?
On 5 January 2012 05:48, John Baldwin wrote: > [ A bit excessive on the cross-posting? arch@ alone was probably fine ] I wanted to capture the attention of relevant people, as I don't want to break some subtle setup that I'm not at all aware of. > NFS doesn't actually use them curently, only UFS and ZFS do. Unfortunately > we've yet to make it possible to compile ZFS into the kernel, so you can't > make the sys/conf/files bits completely accurate yet (it would be nice to > let folks who don't need FFS for a ZFS-only system remove FFS and UFS, but > this would break that): Ok. I'll just test that the GENERIC build works and then commit it. adrian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is it possible to make subr_acl_nfs4 and subr_acl_posix1e disabled?
2012/1/5 Dag-Erling Smørgrav : > Adrian Chadd writes: >> Since I'm not using NFS or UFS_ACL, I wondered if that code required. >> It turns out I can just build a kernel with those two disabled. >> >> Would it be possible to remove them from "standard" and make them >> optional? Or is there a reason to keep it in base? > > I would be very annoyed if it were no longer possible to netboot > GENERIC... I don't want to break that. :) I Just don't want to compile it in unless I'm using NFS/ZFS, and on my 4MB flash boards I'm not booting w/ NFS compiled in statically.. Adrian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is it possible to make subr_acl_nfs4 and subr_acl_posix1e disabled?
[ A bit excessive on the cross-posting? arch@ alone was probably fine ]
On Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:57:44 am Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to slim down the freebsd kernel to fit on some devices with
> 4MB of flash.
>
> Since I'm not using NFS or UFS_ACL, I wondered if that code required.
> It turns out I can just build a kernel with those two disabled.
>
> Would it be possible to remove them from "standard" and make them
> optional? Or is there a reason to keep it in base?
> If so (eg so things can be kldload'ed that uses the ACL code) can we
> make it a build-time option, and/or a pair of loadable kernel modules?
NFS doesn't actually use them curently, only UFS and ZFS do. Unfortunately
we've yet to make it possible to compile ZFS into the kernel, so you can't
make the sys/conf/files bits completely accurate yet (it would be nice to
let folks who don't need FFS for a ZFS-only system remove FFS and UFS, but
this would break that):
Index: files
===
--- files (revision 229491)
+++ files (working copy)
@@ -2393,8 +2393,9 @@ kern/sched_ule.c optional sched_ule
kern/serdev_if.m standard
kern/stack_protector.c standard \
compile-with "${NORMAL_C:N-fstack-protector*}"
-kern/subr_acl_nfs4.c standard
-kern/subr_acl_posix1e.cstandard
+# XXX: subr_acl_nfs4.c is also used by ZFS
+kern/subr_acl_nfs4.c optional ufs_acl
+kern/subr_acl_posix1e.coptional ufs_acl
kern/subr_autoconf.c standard
kern/subr_blist.c standard
kern/subr_bus.cstandard
--
John Baldwin
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is it possible to make subr_acl_nfs4 and subr_acl_posix1e disabled?
Adrian Chadd writes: > Since I'm not using NFS or UFS_ACL, I wondered if that code required. > It turns out I can just build a kernel with those two disabled. > > Would it be possible to remove them from "standard" and make them > optional? Or is there a reason to keep it in base? I would be very annoyed if it were no longer possible to netboot GENERIC... DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Is it possible to make subr_acl_nfs4 and subr_acl_posix1e disabled?
Hi, I'm trying to slim down the freebsd kernel to fit on some devices with 4MB of flash. Since I'm not using NFS or UFS_ACL, I wondered if that code required. It turns out I can just build a kernel with those two disabled. Would it be possible to remove them from "standard" and make them optional? Or is there a reason to keep it in base? If so (eg so things can be kldload'ed that uses the ACL code) can we make it a build-time option, and/or a pair of loadable kernel modules? Thanks, Adrian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
