Reducing the need to compile a custom kernel
freebsd at jdc.parodius.com
Mon Feb 13 15:42:47 UTC 2012
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 05:05:41PM +0200, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >I want to note here: the pf ALTQ options are a pain in the butt, quite
> >honestly. I've found in the past that removing the ones you don't use
> >won't result in a successful build, thus one must include them all. We
> >do need ALTQ support though, for rate-limiting capability. The NOPCC
> >option is needed for SMP builds, which makes me wonder what the state of
> >SMP is in this regard -- meaning, on non-SMP builds, is it still safe
> >to include ALTQ_NOPCC?
> It seems like I'm missing something. What is good about using
> non-SMP kernel?
Nothing. It's a question of whether or not use of ALTQ_NOPCC causes
breakage on non-SMP kernels, or if FreeBSD even bothers to support
non-SMP at this point. "Non-SMP" means "without options SMP".
Rephrased: if SMP is the default, and "options SMP" works just fine on
systems without multiple processors/cores, then the ALTQ_NOPCC option
should probably be removed.
| Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, US |
| Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB |
More information about the freebsd-stable