Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 May 2005 00:17:12 +0200 (CEST) | From | Per Liden <> | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] hotplug-ng 002 release |
| |
On Mon, 9 May 2005, Per Svennerbrandt wrote:
> * Per Liden (per@fukt.bth.se) wrote: > > On Fri, 6 May 2005, Greg KH wrote: > > > > [...] > > > Now, with the 2.6.12-rc3 kernel, and a patch for module-init-tools, the > > > USB hotplug program can be written with a simple one line shell script: > > > modprobe $MODALIAS > > > > Nice, but why not just convert all this to a call to > > request_module($MODALIAS)? Seems to me like the natural thing to do. > > I actually have a pretty hackish proof-of-consept patch that does > basicly that, and have been running it on my systems for the past five > months or so, if anybody's interested.
Ah! Please post the patches.
> Along with it I also have a patch witch exports the module aliases for > PCI and USB devices through sysfs. With it the "coldplugging" of a > system (module wise) can be reduced to pretty much: > > #!/bin/sh > > for DEV in /sys/bus/{pci,usb}/devices/*; do > modprobe `cat $DEV/modalias` > done
Nice! This is really what coldplugging _should_ look like. Hmm, maybe even coldplug the system by request_module()'ing those as well at some stage?
> (And I actually run exactly that on my laptop, and it works surpricingly > well. (Largly due to the fact that the usb-controller is always attached > below the pci-bus of course, but it really wouldn't take that much work > to make it do the right thing even without relying on any specific > ordering/topology)) > > With the above in place my system does all the module-loading that I > care about automaticly, and most importantly does so without relying > on an /etc/hotplug/ dir with everything and it's grandma in it (or at > least thousands of lines of shellscripting).
This is exactly what I'm looking for as well.
> But since the request_modalias() thing seemed as such an obvious thing > to do I have been reluctant to submit it fearing that I must have missed > some fundamental flaw in it or you guys would have implemented it that > way a long time ago? (at least since Rusty rewrote the module > loader). Was I wrong*? > > Greg, Rusty, what do you think?
I'd like to get a better understanding of that as well. Why invent a second on demand module loader when we have kmod? The current approach feels like a step back to something very similar to the old kerneld.
/Per L - 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/
| |