[...]
> > > This is, IMO, a good idea. I certainly don't want some
> > > smartass daemon
> > > unloading a module just because it thinks it should. 8)
> >
> > another option in config file? something like ``do_not_unload''?
>
> No. Modules shouldn't be unloaded automatically.
but why? :-) what is wrong with that? it would be so nice to have small
GENERIC kernel and bunch of modules. kernel will start, identify all
hardware (pci/pnp) and than load appropriate modules. the only problem
here is old hardware :(
[...]
> > i do not agree :-) code wants device
> driver/interface/filesystem/????.
> > code should not care about module name. of course it is
> better to have
> > name convension, but i think this is not the case. :-)
>
> This is debatable; mount, for example, knows the name of its
> plugins. So
> does PAM. Kernel modules are just plugins that go somewhere else.
let say i'm a third party vendor. i developed new hardware and driver for
FreeBSD (of course KLD module). i do not want to give my source
code to anybody. so you have the following options:
1) go ahead and try to convince me to use the same name convention
2) just ignore this hardware/driver/vendor
3) wait until somebody writes an ``open source'' driver
4) try do something to make in work (could be as easy as rename)
5) ???
thanks,
emax
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
