[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51D49655.8030206@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 23:23:33 +0200
From: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Jonathan Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
"linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Allow optional module parameters
Dne 3.7.2013 23:17, Andy Lutomirski napsal(a):
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz> wrote:
>> Dne 1.7.2013 18:33, Jonathan Masters napsal(a):
>>> One caveat. Sometimes we have manufactured parameters intentionally
>>> to cause a module to fail. We should standardize that piece.
>>
>> You have:
>>
>> blacklist foo
>>
>> to prevent udev from loading a module and
>>
>> install foo /bin/true
>>
>> to prevent modprobe from loading the module at all. What is the
>> motivation for inventing a third way, through adding invalid parameters?
>>
>
> FWIW, I've occasionally booted with modulename.garbage=1 to prevent
> modulename from loading at boot. It may be worth adding a more
> intentional way to do that.
Hm, right, there seems to be no clean way to achieve this via a
commandline argument. Maybe define a magic module option to tell the
module loader not to load a module?
Thanks,
Michal
--
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