cvs commit: src/sys/dev/ata ata-queue.c

[Alexander Leidinger]

Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no> wrote:

> Alexander Leidinger <Alexander at Leidinger.net> writes:
>> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no> wrote:
>> > There is no good reason to use what you call the classic way, and
>> > you're not doing anybody any favors by pretending there is.
>> What does the buildkernel way what the classic way doesn't do?
>>
>> What does the buildkernel way what the classic way doesn't do? Which item in
>> this list needs to be done to avoid some bad things to happen and which bad
>> things are we talking about?
>
> These questions have been answered before, many times.

And I haven't seen a technical reason why the classic way of doing it is bad.
Did I missed it or do I have to say "I don't get it"?

>> If you just change one file and you want to recompile the kernel, which
>> procedure is faster?
>
> They're equally fast, though 'buildkernel' normally does 'make clean'
> and 'make depend' every time.  Use NO_KERNELCLEAN when you can get
> away with it (which is most of the time; I have it in make.conf) and
> NO_KERNELDEPEND when you know you haven't changed the dependency tree
> (i.e. when you haven't changed any #include statements).  All the
> usual tricks (KODIR, NO_MODULES, MODULES_OVERRIDE) also work.

The "equally fast, though ..." part is funny (at least to me, YMMV)...

So I have to type "make buildkernel -DNO_KERNELDEPEND" (while having
NO_KERNELCLEAN=yes in make.conf) instead of "make"... sorry, but I'm too
lazy to do this (at least as long as I don't get a benefit out of using the
new way).

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
http://www.Leidinger.net  Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org     netchild @ FreeBSD.org  : PGP ID = 72077137
Rule the Empire through force.
		-- Shogun Tokugawa