Reducing the need to compile a custom kernel

Nenhum_de_Nos matheus at
Fri Feb 10 16:06:22 UTC 2012

On Fri, February 10, 2012 11:56, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Hi,
> during some big discussions in the last monts on various lists, one of
> the problems was that some people would like to use freebsd-update but
> can't as they are using a custom kernel. With all the kernel modules
> we provide, the need for a custom kernel should be small, but on the
> other hand, we do not provide a small kernel-skeleton where you can
> load just the modules you need.
> This should be easy to change. As a first step I took the generic
> kernel and removed all devices which are available as modules, e.g.
> the USB section consists now only of the USB_DEBUG option (so that the
> module is build like with the current generic kernel). I also removed
> some storage drivers which are not available as a module. The
> rationale is, that I can not remove CAM from the kernel config if I
> let those drivers inside (if those drivers are important enough,
> someone will probably fix the problem and add the missing pieces to
> generate a module).
> Such a kernel would cover situations where people compile their own
> kernel because they want to get rid of some unused kernel code (and
> maybe even need the memory this frees up).
> The question is, is this enough? Or asked differently, why are you
> compiling a custom kernel in a production environment (so I rule out
> debug options zhich are not enabled in GENERIC)? Are there options
> which you add which you can not add as a module (SW_WATCHDOG comes to
> my mind)? If yes, which ones and how important are they for you?

Its a great thing this Alexander, but for me mainly I need PF+ALTQ and soekris stuff (apart from
things other said before).


We will call you Cygnus,
The God of balance you shall be

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list