kldload vs Statically compiled in kernel
freebsd at edvax.de
Wed Mar 17 03:04:02 UTC 2010
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:37:58 -0500, Brandon Falk <falkman at gamozo.org> wrote:
> Hello fellow FreeBSD mates,
> I've always statically compiled in my modules into my kernel, rather
> then using kldload, or throwing them in /boot/loader.conf. I'm just
> wondering if there are actually any advantages to doing it this way.
There's only one important point that doesn't seem to be
achievable using the means of /boot/loader.conf: It is
the case if you have to make settings that are needed to
be present at compile time. An example:
Allthough you can load bktr.ko, you can't specify those
parameters. The same seems to be true for such settings:
Another scenario, well, it's more an attitude, is to taylor
a kernel exactly to present hardware, letting it contain
only those components that *need* to be present. This can
be required when operating on low space.
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
More information about the freebsd-questions