[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <923151410781803@web9m.yandex.ru>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:50:03 +0400
From: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: "mmarek@...e.cz" <mmarek@...e.cz>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
"grant.likely@...retlab.ca" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
"ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"ktkhai@...allels.com" <ktkhai@...allels.com>,
"sam@...nborg.org" <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Implement /proc/built-in file similar to /proc/modules
14.09.2014, 22:56, "Greg KH" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:35:58PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> On 14.09.2014 22:13, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:05:46PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>>> On 14.09.2014 21:39, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 09:31:58PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>>>>> On 14.09.2014 19:38, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 02:18:13PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>>>>>>> This series implements a possibility to show the list of built-in drivers
>>>>>>>> to userspace. The names of drivers will be the same as when they are modules.
>>>>>>> Have you looked at /sys/modules/ ? Doesn't that show what you want
>>>>>>> here?
>>>>>> There are only the drivers in "/sys/module" which have parameters.
>>>>>> Drivers without parameters do not appear there.
>>>>> Ah, didn't realize that. Should be easy to fix though, if you really
>>>>> wanted to list the modules. Much better than a random proc file that
>>>>> you have to parse :)
>>>> But it looks like one file is better than many new directories.
>>> Why?
>> It's just an unification with /proc/modules. Why should we do any
>> difference between external and built-in modules? It's the same,
>> it's similar, it's better to parse when they can be shown similar.
>
> /proc/modules is for loaded modules, and it includes lots of information
> that tools rely on. It is also a very old file, no new
> non-process-related proc/ files should be created anymore. It's been
> that way since sysfs was created (and one of the reasons for sysfs.)
>>> No, they want the functionality that a module provides, not the module
>>> name, or some random configuation option.
>>>
>>> It seems like you are trying to solve a problem that isn't there. What
>>> program is broken right now that this new proc file (or sysfs directory)
>>> would fix?
>> The initial reason was I'm building custom kernels for more than 10
>> years (not so long, I agree), and every boot I see a big list of modules
>> from distribution /etc/module, which can't be autoloaded. I prefer to
>> build drivers in kernel. I tried to find is there a way for userspace to
>> understand that a module are present, but there is no a way. So this is
>> a reason.
>
> I don't understand, my distro doesn't have any modules listed in
> /etc/module that aren't autoloaded, perhaps you should work with your
> distro on that :)
>
> And how would these patches remove those config files?
>
> Again, focus on kernel functionality, not module names or config
> options, and you should be fine.
Ok, I have no objections anymore.
Thanks,
Kirill
--
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