[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150319171557.GS25365@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:15:57 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Doug Thompson <dougthompson@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] EDAC: amd64_edac: decide if driver can load
successfully early.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:10:47PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Scroll back a couple of messages.
>
> lsmod indicating hardware capability? Really? You're just adding
> confusion to the mix. Stop.
To add a bit, seriously, try to take a step back from your one driver
and look at the larger picture. The association between module being
loaded or not and hardware capability has been long broken. It's not
a useable way to communicate anything to userland. What if the module
is built-in? What's the difference between your precious one driver
and all others? How is userland supposed to tell? This is really you
implementing what should have been in your /etc/rc.local in kernel
driver and is totally unacceptable. Please don't pull stunts like
this.
--
tejun
--
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