Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Module alias and device table support. | Date | Mon, 03 Feb 2003 11:52:57 +1100 |
| |
In message <200302012302.h11N2R3U001433@eeyore.valparaiso.cl> you write: > Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> said: > > [...] > > > BTW, the reason for using the alias mechanism is that aliases are > > useful in themselves: consider you write a "new_foo" driver, you can > > do "MODULE_ALIAS("foo")" and so no userspace changes are neccessary. > > module-init-tools 0.9.8 already supported this. > > May I respectfully disagree again?
Hi Horst,
Thoughtful and respecful criticism? I didn't think that was allowed on linux-kernel any more? 8)
> This is fundamentally broken, as it takes away the possibility of me > (sysadmin) to load foo or old_foo. I end up with an (useless) foo, and a > new_foo that aliases for foo, and soon I'd have even_newer_foo masquerading > as foo too, and all hell breaks loose. The effect is bloat over just > deleting foo in the first place, as it can't be used at all now.
Well, "modprobe foo" will only give you the "new_foo" driver if (1) the foo driver isn't found, and (2) the new driver author decides that it's a valid replacement.
Whether (2) is ever justified, I'm happy leaving to the individual author (I know, that makes me a wimp).
Consider another example: convenience aliases such as char-major-xxx. Now, I'm not convinced they're a great idea anyway, but if people are going to do this, I'd rather they did it in the kernel, rather than some random userspace program.
I think the alias mechanism is valid, but you have a point about the dangers, too.
Thoughts? 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/
| |