pfsync in GENERIC?
Steven Schlansker
scs at EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Fri May 29 23:55:32 UTC 2009
On May 29, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Mel Flynn wrote:
> On Friday 29 May 2009 20:38:54 Steven Schlansker wrote:
>
>> And not to be argumentative, but sys/conf/NOTES does not really
>> provide any information. The only comment explains what the device
>> does, not why it wouldn't be enabled in GENERIC. Is there any reason
>> it could not be? (For those of us who want to use freebsd-update,
>> for
>> example)
>
> Choice of the project. You'd have to ask on -current, -pf or -
> hackers for a
> more authoritative answer, but my guess would be that 80% of the
> people using
> this feature in production have a highly optimized kernel and
> wouldn't be
> using GENERIC to begin with.
Hm. I was actually under the impression that you wouldn't gain much
by compiling your own kernel (except for maybe some disk space). Is
that not the case? Is there a strong reason to compile your own
kernel for "production" machines? The discussion online is not
conclusive (then again I'll probably just get contradictory opinions
again here!)
I'm just thinking that since pf is included in the base distribution,
there's enough people that use it that it's worth including. It seems
that pfsync would be a negligible addon, and much more attractive due
to the lack of support for building it as a module.
Anyway, if I have further questions about pfsync in particular I guess
I'll go ask -pf. I may have some free time coming up; maybe I'll even
try my hand at hacking on the kernel and see if I can't make it build
as a module... (would that be a semi-reasonable project for someone
with light familiarity with kernel coding? I've coded up Linux kernel
modules before, but haven't worked in-tree on a "real" OS)
Best,
Steven
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list