lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.2: /proc/config.gz
Date
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:08:49 -0400 (EDT), 
Chris Meadors <clubneon@hereintown.net> wrote:
>What about those of us who don't have modules enabled. "make
>modules_install" complains.
>
>I'm still like the idea of /lib/kernel or /lib/linux. Keep /lib/modules
>for modules. Or on my machines I won't even have to create /lib/modules.

The directory name is irrelevant, we just want one place to store
information for a specific kernel. Right now we have /boot/vmlinuz,
/boot/System.map with symlinks to the real vmlinuz and map,
/lib/modules/<version> contains modules and the symlink to the kernel
source tree, nothing contains .config. Is it just me or does this
design make no sense?

Having one directory per installed kernel containing vmlinuz, map,
config, build symlink, modules and any future kernel related data makes
sense. Whether you call it /lib/modules/<version> or
/lib/kernel/<version> is irrelevant. The fact that "make
modules_install" complains without modules configured in is also
irrelevant, that little bit of the Makefile is easily fixed, but there
is no point in changing the Makefile until we agree on a design change.

The only problem I can see with the single directory model is on disks
where /lib/module/<version>/vmlinuz is past cylinder 1024, although
that restriction is fast disappearing. Even this problem can be easily
fixed by a new Makefile target (make install_low) which copies vmlinuz
to /boot as well as /lib/module/<version>.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.059 / U:10.572 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site