Re: Path to kernel modules (second attempt)

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Bernd Ernesti <netbsd%lists.veego.de@localhost> wrote:
> > > (I know there's an argument that if it's /kernel we could eventually
> > > put other stuff in there as well besides modules; but all such uses
> > > are so far entirely conjectural (not even to the stage of being
> > > vaporware) so I think it's highly premature to plan for them at this
> > > point.)
> > 
> > Is there a reason to *not* go with /kernel, besides annoyance of it
> > being similar to /kern? [..]
> 
> Please not /kernel as it was already mentioned, it is too similar to
> /kern. Filename completion would be not easier if you want to use a
> file from /kern.

I do not really see that as a real problem.  Slight annoyance - yes.

> Either somewhere below /libdata or if you really want a new toplevel
> directory then it could be /boot which was mentioned, so it match the
> FreeBSD behaviour.

Kernel modules are not just miscellaneous data blobs.  As for matching,
the same argument can apply to /kernel, which is matching Solaris (also,
our modload/modstat/modunload utilities are ~matching Solaris/SunOS).
There is not that much point in matching, however, as we use a different
structure anyway.

-- 
Mindaugas