Re: does streamlining kernel config really not help performance?

[Ben Goren <ben_(_at_)_trumpetpower_(_dot_)_com>]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 02:35:56PM -0700, Ted U wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Ben Goren wrote:
>
> > This reminds  me of something I've  wondered about. This whole
> > config -e thing just feels  awkward and clumsy compared to the
> > rest of OpenBSD configuration. Is there any fundamental reason
> > there can't be  a file, such as  /<kernel-name>.conf, that has
> > these options in them?
>
> I actually like that the openbsd  kernel is all in one piece.  A
> nice self-contained file.  Makes upgrading much easier since you
> don't have to worry about the version of your support files.

Actually, if done right,  this'll make upgrades easier. Right now,
when  you  upgrade and  you're  not  using  GENERIC, you  need  to
recompile  your  kernel or  use  config,  no? If recompiling  your
kernel, options  sometimes change; it's  not a given that  you can
use a  configuration file from  one version with  another--and you
still have to make the changes.

With a file, options that aren't  valid (e.g., because of a change
in  the  kernel  across  versions) could  be  ignored,  trigger  a
warning, drop you into UKC>, or whatever as deemed appropriate. If
nothing  changes between  versions,  then you  can  keep the  file
unmodified and go your merry way with nary a thing to to.

This  would only  make sense  if the  file only  over-rode options
already  specified   in  the  kernel. Using  it   to  specify  all
configuration and options would be madness, I think.

b&

--
Ben Goren
 mailto:ben_(_at_)_trumpetpower_(_dot_)_com
 http://www.trumpetpower.com/
 icbm:33o25'37"N_111o57'32"W

[demime 0.98d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]