Re: [RFC PATCH] Allow optional module parameters
From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Wed Jul 03 2013 - 17:37:22 EST
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Lucas De Marchi
<lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Michal Marek <mmarek@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Dne 3.7.2013 23:17, Andy Lutomirski napsal(a):
>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Michal Marek <mmarek@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> Dne 1.7.2013 18:33, Jonathan Masters napsal(a):
>
>>>> One caveat. Sometimes we have manufactured parameters intentionally
>
>>>> to cause a module to fail. We should standardize that piece.
>
>>>
>
>>> You have:
>
>>>
>
>>> blacklist foo
>
>>>
>
>>> to prevent udev from loading a module and
>
>>>
>
>>> install foo /bin/true
>
>>>
>
>>> to prevent modprobe from loading the module at all. What is the
>
>>> motivation for inventing a third way, through adding invalid parameters?
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>> FWIW, I've occasionally booted with modulename.garbage=1 to prevent
>
>> modulename from loading at boot. It may be worth adding a more
>
>> intentional way to do that.
>
>
>
> Hm, right, there seems to be no clean way to achieve this via a
>
> commandline argument. Maybe define a magic module option to tell the
>
> module loader not to load a module?
>
>
modprobe.blacklist=modname1,modname2,... is already there, though all
>
the silliness of blacklist applies unless "-b" is passed (that's the
>
equivalent behavior of udev)
That would probably be good enough for me.
It would be neat if this worked for built-in "modules" as well, but
that would probably be quite intrusive.
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/