-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I'm running devfs on a 2.6.0-test1 box (Mandrake 9.1 with the new kernel)
Every time I boot, it complains that I don't have an /etc/modprobe.devfs.
If I symlink modules.devfs, I get a wad of errors about 'probeall'.
What should a modprobe.devfs look like for a 2.5/6 kernel?
Mark.
- --
Mark Watts
Senior Systems Engineer
QinetiQ TIM
St Andrews Road, Malvern
GPG Public Key ID: 455420ED
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/FmnEBn4EFUVUIO0RAuIhAKCtaLLrHHz28Lvdeo/S1Wfnh06KkwCgi7GU
Ed9Y6URl2jvMzdf7MpUMTNM=
=bIYP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mark Watts <[email protected]> writes:
> I'm running devfs on a 2.6.0-test1 box (Mandrake 9.1 with the new
> kernel)
>
> Every time I boot, it complains that I don't have an
> /etc/modprobe.devfs. If I symlink modules.devfs, I get a wad of
> errors about 'probeall'. What should a modprobe.devfs look like for
> a 2.5/6 kernel?
tv@vador ~ $ urpmf /etc/modprobe.devfs
module-init-tools:/etc/modprobe.devfs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Mark Watts <[email protected]> writes:
> > I'm running devfs on a 2.6.0-test1 box (Mandrake 9.1 with the new
> > kernel)
> >
> > Every time I boot, it complains that I don't have an
> > /etc/modprobe.devfs. If I symlink modules.devfs, I get a wad of
> > errors about 'probeall'. What should a modprobe.devfs look like for
> > a 2.5/6 kernel?
>
> tv@vador ~ $ urpmf /etc/modprobe.devfs
> module-init-tools:/etc/modprobe.devfs
>
Interesting, an urpmf for that on my 9.1 box reveals nothing...
Thanks for the pointer...
Mark.
- --
Mark Watts
Senior Systems Engineer
QinetiQ TIM
St Andrews Road, Malvern
GPG Public Key ID: 455420ED
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/FoNtBn4EFUVUIO0RAtsrAKDv8zNE7UwPttJ50cw5IFT4riRzFACfRQYy
dhUB9kqE4EX3ybdcieLiEbU=
=xA0b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 11:17, Mark Watts wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> I'm running devfs on a 2.6.0-test1 box (Mandrake 9.1 with the new kernel)
>
> Every time I boot, it complains that I don't have an /etc/modprobe.devfs.
> If I symlink modules.devfs, I get a wad of errors about 'probeall'.
> What should a modprobe.devfs look like for a 2.5/6 kernel?
>
The module-init-tools tarball should include one.
Regards,
--
Martin Schlemmer
On 17 Jul 2003, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 11:17, Mark Watts wrote:
> > I'm running devfs on a 2.6.0-test1 box (Mandrake 9.1 with the new kernel)
> >
> > Every time I boot, it complains that I don't have an /etc/modprobe.devfs.
> > If I symlink modules.devfs, I get a wad of errors about 'probeall'.
> > What should a modprobe.devfs look like for a 2.5/6 kernel?
> >
>
> The module-init-tools tarball should include one.
Agreed, it should. However, the last version I pulled had zero support for
probeall, and more importantly for probe, which is somewhat harder to do
cleanly without having to rewrite the config file for each kernel you
boot.
I assume someone will need to write a functional config parser which
handles these features before 2.6 is seriously ready for production.
Giving up the ability to find the working module for a device would be a
step back, and is needed to allow booting with changing configurations,
such as docked or not laptops, PCMCIA cards inserted, various hardware
such as printers and scanners attached, etc.
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> >> tv@vador ~ $ urpmf /etc/modprobe.devfs
> >> module-init-tools:/etc/modprobe.devfs
> >
> > Interesting, an urpmf for that on my 9.1 box reveals nothing...
>
> the package is in cooker since today. Get SRPMs for modutils, devfsd and
> module-init-tools, compile and install.
Ok, I've got those and I now have a modules.devfs...
I'm getting the impression that a bunch of modules have changed their names
(i810_audio for example).
Even though I've changed (or I think I have) these module names in
modprobe.conf I'm seeing failures for loading the old ones... Is something
reading modules.conf that shouldn't?
Cheers,
Mark.
- --
Mark Watts
Senior Systems Engineer
QinetiQ TIM
St Andrews Road, Malvern
GPG Public Key ID: 455420ED
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/F9DTBn4EFUVUIO0RAh9jAJ4hX6y6+rwDDOSsIfzm9MQMl+hIkwCeJsOa
rXjtNYZe/ZvOx+waW1+mOd4=
=udld
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 00:39, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2003, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 11:17, Mark Watts wrote:
>
> > > I'm running devfs on a 2.6.0-test1 box (Mandrake 9.1 with the new kernel)
> > >
> > > Every time I boot, it complains that I don't have an /etc/modprobe.devfs.
> > > If I symlink modules.devfs, I get a wad of errors about 'probeall'.
> > > What should a modprobe.devfs look like for a 2.5/6 kernel?
> > >
> >
> > The module-init-tools tarball should include one.
>
> Agreed, it should. However, the last version I pulled had zero support for
> probeall, and more importantly for probe, which is somewhat harder to do
> cleanly without having to rewrite the config file for each kernel you
> boot.
>
Well, it implements probeall in another fashion. Also, you might
try /sbin/generate-modprobe.conf to convert a modules.conf to
modprobe.conf syntax.
> I assume someone will need to write a functional config parser which
> handles these features before 2.6 is seriously ready for production.
> Giving up the ability to find the working module for a device would be a
> step back, and is needed to allow booting with changing configurations,
> such as docked or not laptops, PCMCIA cards inserted, various hardware
> such as printers and scanners attached, etc.
Also, read the threads on the list about udev/hotplug - apparently
devfsd is going out ...
Regards,
--
Martin Schlemmer
>> Agreed, it should. However, the last version I pulled had zero support for
>> probeall, and more importantly for probe, which is somewhat harder to do
>> cleanly without having to rewrite the config file for each kernel you
>> boot.
>>
>
> Well, it implements probeall in another fashion. Also, you might
> try /sbin/generate-modprobe.conf to convert a modules.conf to
> modprobe.conf syntax.
modprobe.conf syntax is easy to implement but unfortunately PITA to use.
Exactly probe and probeall have been very helful in tracking module
dependencies. Now you have arbitrary shell line that is near to impossible to
parse in general.
I added half-hearted support to mkinitrd and initscripts for Mandrake but it
will never be complete given the current situation.
Also I fixed devfsd to correctly use modprobe.devfs or modules.devfs depending
on which kernel it runs on; patch has been sent both to lkml and devfs list
and is included in current Mandrake devfsd.
actually adding probe and probeall is trivial enough, I did not want to base
Mandrake packages on that to avoid incompatibility.
> Also, read the threads on the list about udev/hotplug - apparently
> devfsd is going out ...
as long as you have memory-based /dev you need devfsd even if it is called
differently.
-andrey
On Sun, 2003-07-20 at 19:17, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> > Well, it implements probeall in another fashion. Also, you might
> > try /sbin/generate-modprobe.conf to convert a modules.conf to
> > modprobe.conf syntax.
>
> modprobe.conf syntax is easy to implement but unfortunately PITA to use.
> Exactly probe and probeall have been very helful in tracking module
> dependencies. Now you have arbitrary shell line that is near to impossible to
> parse in general.
>
True.
> I added half-hearted support to mkinitrd and initscripts for Mandrake but it
> will never be complete given the current situation.
>
> Also I fixed devfsd to correctly use modprobe.devfs or modules.devfs depending
> on which kernel it runs on; patch has been sent both to lkml and devfs list
> and is included in current Mandrake devfsd.
>
As I have it in Gentoo, it is done modprobe side, but only because its
less patches (as Rusty already added the changes to his hack, plus the
modprobe.devfs I sent him).
> actually adding probe and probeall is trivial enough, I did not want to base
> Mandrake packages on that to avoid incompatibility.
>
Have you checked with Rusty yet if he will accept probe/probeall patches
for module-init-tools ? I (IMHO) do not see why it should not be
possible to add if its done cleanly, and do not break anything else.
> > Also, read the threads on the list about udev/hotplug - apparently
> > devfsd is going out ...
>
> as long as you have memory-based /dev you need devfsd even if it is called
> differently.
>
I have not looked at it myself, but as far as I have it, you do not
mount /dev, and just need udev/hotplug/libsysfs (not sure on libsysfs).
Currently udev still call mknod, but I think Greg said he will fix that
in the future.
Regards,
--
Martin Schlemmer
In message <[email protected]> you write:
> > modprobe.conf syntax is easy to implement but unfortunately PITA
> > to use. Exactly probe and probeall have been very helful in
> > tracking module dependencies. Now you have arbitrary shell line
> > that is near to impossible to parse in general.
Sure. But probe and probeall isn't enough. You'll also want
conditionals in the parsing of the config file, so you can do
different things on different architectures or different kernel
levels. You're going to lose, here, if you try to be general 8(
We already have one hook to do arbitrary things, and I think it's
quite neat:
# Sound is complex.
install sound-slot-0 /sbin/configure-sound
Now, if you want to implement a meta-language that does all this,
great! But I'm resisting new features in the base, because I have to
support them, and I'm incredibly lazy.
Modules already have their own hard and soft dependencies. If you
have an incredibly complex modprobe.conf, it's worth asking whether
the correct solution is to make modprobe.conf's syntax more powerful,
or look at making a more fundamental change...
Hope that clarifies,
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 12:48:56AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-07-20 at 19:17, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> > > Also, read the threads on the list about udev/hotplug - apparently
> > > devfsd is going out ...
> >
> > as long as you have memory-based /dev you need devfsd even if it is called
> > differently.
> >
>
> I have not looked at it myself, but as far as I have it, you do not
> mount /dev, and just need udev/hotplug/libsysfs (not sure on libsysfs).
> Currently udev still call mknod, but I think Greg said he will fix that
> in the future.
What's wrong with calling mknod?
I did say I thought about calling sys_mknod directly from udev, but
that's just a minor change. Is that what you were referring to?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 16:36, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 12:48:56AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-07-20 at 19:17, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> > > > Also, read the threads on the list about udev/hotplug - apparently
> > > > devfsd is going out ...
> > >
> > > as long as you have memory-based /dev you need devfsd even if it is called
> > > differently.
> > >
> >
> > I have not looked at it myself, but as far as I have it, you do not
> > mount /dev, and just need udev/hotplug/libsysfs (not sure on libsysfs).
> > Currently udev still call mknod, but I think Greg said he will fix that
> > in the future.
>
> What's wrong with calling mknod?
>
> I did say I thought about calling sys_mknod directly from udev, but
> that's just a minor change. Is that what you were referring to?
>
Yep. Nothing major - I just want to remember somebody moaning
about too much overhead with udev spawning for every event in
/dev.
Cheers,
--
Martin Schlemmer
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 04:52:22PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
>
> Yep. Nothing major - I just want to remember somebody moaning
> about too much overhead with udev spawning for every event in
> /dev.
Yeah, that was a moan of someone who didn't really know what they were
talking about :)
Not a real problem, move along, nothing to see here...
thanks,
greg k-h
In article <[email protected]>,
Martin Schlemmer <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| --=-7Lt6k6a+JkixQBaZzKBJ
| Content-Type: text/plain
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
|
| On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 00:39, Bill Davidsen wrote:
| > On 17 Jul 2003, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
| >=20
| > > On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 11:17, Mark Watts wrote:
| >=20
| > > > I'm running devfs on a 2.6.0-test1 box (Mandrake 9.1 with the new ker=
| nel)
| > > >=20
| > > > Every time I boot, it complains that I don't have an /etc/modprobe.de=
| vfs.
| > > > If I symlink modules.devfs, I get a wad of errors about 'probeall'.
| > > > What should a modprobe.devfs look like for a 2.5/6 kernel?
| > > >=20
| > >=20
| > > The module-init-tools tarball should include one.
| >=20
| > Agreed, it should. However, the last version I pulled had zero support fo=
| r
| > probeall, and more importantly for probe, which is somewhat harder to do
| > cleanly without having to rewrite the config file for each kernel you
| > boot.
| >=20
|
| Well, it implements probeall in another fashion. Also, you might
| try /sbin/generate-modprobe.conf to convert a modules.conf to
| modprobe.conf syntax.
Doesn't seem to convert "probe" unless there's a *very* new version, it
converted my eight line modules.conf including probe to 113 lines of
code I need to edit before rebooting.
The problem has been that certain drivers take turns working in the 2.5
evolution, e100 and eepro for instance. So if I have e100 I want to load
it, otherwise try eepro. That's what probe is all about, and I can boot
one kernel or another, regardless of which driver works (or is compiled)
in a given kernel.
Seems like a giant step backward to drop useful functionality, but 2.4
will be around for a long time.
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.