Alan Barrett writes:
> None of our GENERIC* or INSTALL* kernels include support for cgd (the
> encrypted disk driver).  What is the reason for this (e.g. legal
> concerns, kernel size concerns, software quality concerns, nobody has
> got around to enabling it yet)?  I have been using cgd for several years
> with no problems, and the absence of cgd is the biggest reason why I am
> unable to use a GENERIC_LAPTOP kernel.
> 
> I would like to add "pseudo-device cgd 4" to all those GENERIC-like
> and INSTALL-like kernel configurations that don't have tight size
> constraints.  I propose to use the presence of "pseudo-device raid" as
> an indicator for the absence of tight size constraints.

So with a GENERIC kernel, RAIDframe weighs in at 172596 bytes:

-rwxr-xr-x  1 oster  wheel  10516572 Aug  7 10:27 GENERIC.NORF/netbsd*
-rwxr-xr-x  1 oster  wheel  10689168 Aug  6 10:50 GENERIC/netbsd*

Methinks one of these would be better indicators:

-rw-rw-r--  1 oster  wheel    561384 Aug  6 10:41 isp_pci.o
-rw-rw-r--  1 oster  wheel    271876 Aug  6 10:35 azalia_codec.o
-rw-rw-r--  1 oster  wheel    199616 Aug  6 10:35 athhal.o
-rw-rw-r--  1 oster  wheel    183716 Aug  6 10:40 if_ti.o

:)

(I agree 100% with getting cgd into GENERIC, but I don't 
agree with RAIDframe being the indicator that we don't care 
about space constraints!)

Later...

Greg Oster