On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:53:03 +0200 "Andreas Heijdendael" <andreas_at_heijdendael.nl> wrote: > Why would you want to remove the ata device from the kernel config in the > first place? Because I don't need it twice (as a module and in the kernel itself). > Seems to me a bit like you're removing the wheels from a car just before you > want to get onto the road. No, I'm loading it as a module instead. It's more like putting everything into the trunk before I get onto the road instead of always having everything in it. But this is a bad metaphor too, since I don't change the hardware that much that I _have_ to remove the ata code, it's just that it is possible (at least it looks like it should be possible) and I want to try this out. > Shouldn't the kernel be able to access the file system in order to even > remotely read the loader.conf file? > Removing the ata device from the kernel would prohibit this. Correct me if > I'm wrong there. The loader works independent from the kernel. So removing the ata code, or anything at all, from the kernel doesn't change the way the loader behaves. Bye, Alexander. -- It is easier to fix Unix than to live with NT. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander _at_ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7Received on Thu May 26 2005 - 11:34:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:35 UTC