[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] hotplug-ng 002 release
    On Mon, 9 May 2005, Per Svennerbrandt wrote:

    > * Per Liden ( 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

    > (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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-05-11 00:22    [W:0.021 / U:47.820 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site