[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871uqglgpf.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:29:56 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add kernel parameter to disable module load
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:44:50 +0800, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 01/29/2012 08:51 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:34:50 +0800, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com> wrote:
> >> Sometimes we need to test a kernel of same version with code or config
> >> option changes.
> >>
> >> We already have sysctl to disable module load, but add a kernel
> >> parameter will be more convenient.
> >
> >
> >> +static int __init module_load_disable(char *str)
> >> +{
> >> + modules_disabled = 1;
> >> + return 1;
> >> +}
> >> +__setup("nomodule", module_load_disable);
> >
> > You misspelled core_param here :)
> >
>
>
> Hello Rusty, If use core_param I'd better to change modules_disabled
> from int to bool or we must pass nomodule=1 instead of simply pass
> nomodule. But I think I can firstly post the core_param patch with
> current int type, then work on the transition patch for the variable
> type changes, what do you think?
You could code your set function, but "bint" is what you want. Cleaning
it up to be a bool is a good idea too.
> Another do you think we need to expose this to sysfs via core_param?
> According to the sysctl code looks like we should not add sysfs
> interface to allow transition from "1" to "0"
If you want it writable, you definitely want to code your own set
function so it's one way. But perm 0 or 0444 make sense, too.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists