![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
In message <30299.1042788854@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> you write: > > rth@twiddle.net said: > > Well, that depends on whether A defines S or not. If A does define S, > > then I don't care. I'd say "no", A does not depend on B. If A does > > not define S, then most definitely "yes", as with any other > > definition. > > As long as doing so doesn't make modprobe fail to load A when B isn't > present or refuses to load. Otherwise what was the point in making it weak? If A depends on B, then modprobe will give a warning if "modprobe A" fails to load B for some reason. If B doesn't exist, then modprobe wouldn't know anything about it (presumably). Hope that clarifies, Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:32 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||