why not document load modules instead of recompiling kernel??

[=?gb2312?q?Jun=20Su?=]

 --- Friedemann Becker
<friedemann.becker at student.uni-tuebingen.de> µÄÕýÎÄ£º>
sorry, this should have been addressed to the list,
> rather than you.
> I once again pressed "reply" and forgot to enter the
> right "To" address
> 
> :))
> 
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Friedemann Becker wrote:
> 
> > Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 21:12:42 +0200 (CEST)
> > From: Friedemann Becker
> <zxmxy33 at mail.uni-tuebingen.de>
> > To: Dag-Erling Sm?grav <des at ofug.org>
> > Cc: csujun at 21cn.com, current at freebsd.org
> > Subject: Re: why not document load modules instead
> of recompiling kernel??
> >
> > hmm.....  ;-)
> >
> > [bitch] /boot/kernel> file
> /boot/kernel/dummynet.ko
> > /boot/kernel/dummynet.ko: ELF 32-bit LSB shared
> object, Intel 80386,
> > version 1 (FreeBSD), not stripped
> >
> >
> > most tasks can be done with kld, no need to
> recompile the kernel.
> > it's much much easier so a source of less errors.
> > I think too, kld should be mentioned appropriatly
> in the handbook. When
> > reading, it seemes like rebuilding the kernel is
> the best (or only) way to
> > configure the device drivers on the system, but I
> think in most cases,
> > kldloading would be better.
> > what else am I supposed to do with my modules?
> >
> > On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Dag-Erling Sm?grav wrote:
> >
> > > Jun Su <csujun at yahoo.com> writes:
> > > > However, kldload ipfw also works. Why there
> isn;t any
> > > > words about this? Is loadable module not
> encourage?
> > >
> > > The module is built without any options (such as
> logging), and there
> > > is no kld for divert sockets or dummynet.
> >
> >

We can also use the compile flag to customize the load
module. This also should be documented, I think. :):)

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? 
¸ü¶à¾ªÏ²£¬Í¬Ñù¾«²Ê£¬NetVista A30 ÈÈÂô
http://ad.cn.doubleclick.net/clk;5313999;7930402;p?http://www.ibm.com/cn/promotion/pc/netvista_a30/index.shtml