On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 08:35:02PM +0100, David Laight wrote:
I think that by MODULAR with built-in modules, you mean a barebones
kernel linked with some .kmod's? I would love to see that. What has to
happen to make it so?
Probably just some 'round tuits'.
Mostly in the area of
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 07:13:16PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 08:35:02PM +0100, David Laight wrote:
I think that by MODULAR with built-in modules, you mean a barebones
kernel linked with some .kmod's? I would love to see that. What has to
happen to make it so?
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Martin S. Weber wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 07:55:38AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
- A port's MONOLITHIC kernel should include features that
traditionally would have been present in a non-modular GENERIC
kernel, and it may or may not include options MODULAR, at the
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 08:09:58AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Martin S. Weber wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 07:55:38AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
- A port's MONOLITHIC kernel should include features that
traditionally would have been present in a non-modular GENERIC
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 08:53:53AM +0100, David Laight wrote:
What is the difference between MONOLITHIC and MODULAR with 'built-in'
modules? And wouldn't the latter be a better aim??
I think that by MODULAR with built-in modules, you mean a barebones
kernel linked with some .kmod's? I would
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:08:02AM -0500, David Young wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 08:53:53AM +0100, David Laight wrote:
What is the difference between MONOLITHIC and MODULAR with 'built-in'
modules? And wouldn't the latter be a better aim??
I think that by MODULAR with built-in modules,
Dear NetBSD users,
The NetBSD core group has discussed the questions presented to us
about the situation with modules and modular kernels.
We understand that there are problems with modularization on all
the platforms, specially on amd64, and we have seen a lot of
breakage due to them in the
