Bernd Ernesti <[email protected]> wrote: > > > (I know there's an argument that if it's /kernel we could eventually > > > put other stuff in there as well besides modules; but all such uses > > > are so far entirely conjectural (not even to the stage of being > > > vaporware) so I think it's highly premature to plan for them at this > > > point.) > > > > Is there a reason to *not* go with /kernel, besides annoyance of it > > being similar to /kern? [..] > > Please not /kernel as it was already mentioned, it is too similar to > /kern. Filename completion would be not easier if you want to use a > file from /kern.
I do not really see that as a real problem. Slight annoyance - yes. > Either somewhere below /libdata or if you really want a new toplevel > directory then it could be /boot which was mentioned, so it match the > FreeBSD behaviour. Kernel modules are not just miscellaneous data blobs. As for matching, the same argument can apply to /kernel, which is matching Solaris (also, our modload/modstat/modunload utilities are ~matching Solaris/SunOS). There is not that much point in matching, however, as we use a different structure anyway. -- Mindaugas
