netdev - Re: 8139cp vs 8139too, request

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1244653206.2848.15.camel@achroite>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:00:06 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To:	Pascal Terjan <pterjan@...driva.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 8139cp vs 8139too, request_module ?

On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 18:02 +0200, Pascal Terjan wrote:
> Hello,
> 8139cp and 8139too both handle the same id and then test revision.
> 
> If revision is wrong they tell to load the other module and return
> ENODEV.
> 
> Why not doing a request_module instead of printing a message ? 

The kernel requests a module to handle each PCI device it doesn't
already have a driver for.  modprobe will then load all modules that
match that PCI device and vendor id.  So 8139cp and 8139too are both
loaded for PCI devices that might be handled by either.  There is no
need for them to try to load each other, and  I suspect there would be a
risk of deadlock if they did.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html