Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] hotplug-ng 002 release | | From | Rusty Russell <> | | Date | Wed, 11 May 2005 10:01:16 +1000 |
| |
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 13:13 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 07:24:47PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On May 10, "Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@ums.usu.ru> wrote: > > > > > Why not this or something similar (e.g. I want to blacklist the xxx and > > > yyy modules)? (note, untested) > > Nice, I like it. > > > Because it's impossible to predict how it will interact with other > > install and alias commands. > > Then we will just have to find out :)
The interaction of aliases and install commands on the same thing is deliberately undefined (eg. "alias foo bar // install foo ..." - which takes priority?), but aliases that lead to install commands like this is OK. If not, it's a bug. The other possible solution is for /etc/hotplug.d/blacklist to contain "install xxx /bin/false // install yyy /bin/true // include /etc/modprobe.d" and have hotplug invoke modprobe with --config=/etc/hotplug.d/blacklist. Substitute names to fit. Now, should install commands in included files override install commands in earlier files? Again, undefined, but currently they do: in the above model maybe they shouldn't? We can nail it down either way...
Thanks, Rusty. -- A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman
- 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/
|  |