[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: does streamlining kernel config really not help performance?
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: does streamlining kernel config really not help performance?
- From: Ben Goren <ben_(_at_)_trumpetpower_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:58:30 -0700
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.
[demime 0.98d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]