> > > On Feb 15, 2019, at 11:47, Robert Huff <roberthuff_at_rcn.com> wrote: > > > > Lev Serebryakov writes: > > > >>> My question would be: why? If some drivers have a new > >>> dependency on iflib, why isn't that expressed in sys/conf/files > >>> and handled automatically? As expressed elsewhere that gets a bit messy when it is more than just a few things that depend on this module, and historically has been done by adding comments to GENERIC that describe the dependency in the form of "requires iflib". Though there are some ideas floating around that might better address this, for the time being that is how it is being handled. > >> My question exactly. > > > > I am so glad people who know what they're talking about have the > > same response I did. :-) > > I totally missed the part where Robert said he was compiling it > into the kernel. Also, I remember the days when drivers didn?t > automatically compile in dependent options (example: ?device re? > requires ?device miibus?). I guess things have changed a bit in > the past year [while I was away] with some drivers? > Thanks, > -Enji > > Respectcfully, > > Robert Huff Nothing has changed, other than we now have another miibus type thing called iflib and there are a half dozen drivers that need to have iflib compiled in if you use them. What is new is that these drivers already existed in the past, but have been re-written to use iflib, so if your carrying an old kernel config file around and update accross the iflib'ification of that driver you have to pick up the change that went into GENERIC that pulls in iflib. These are probably the types of changes that we should consider not merging to something called stable/. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes_at_freebsd.orgReceived on Sat Feb 16 2019 - 14:31:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:20 UTC