From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from zone0.gcu-squad.org ([212.85.147.21]:18694 "EHLO services.gcu-squad.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751673Ab0JEQqF (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:46:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:45:50 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: Laurent Pinchart , Linux Media Mailing List , Hans Verkuil , Pete Eberlein , Mike Isely , Eduardo Valentin , Andy Walls , Vaibhav Hiremath , Muralidharan Karicheri Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] Use modaliases to load I2C modules - please review Message-ID: <20101005184550.7a0527ea@endymion.delvare> In-Reply-To: References: <1285337654-5044-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: Sender: Hi Guennadi, On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:41:09 +0200 (CEST), Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > Hm, maybe testing patches between packing and completing a thousand of > other things was not a very good idea... In any case, I think, it has been > something in my rootfs. Can it be, that modules, loaded per modalias and > per explicit module names interact differently with module blacklists? > That would explain the different behaviour, that I've been observing. As far as I know, blacklisting only affects alias-based module loading. Explicit module loading isn't affected by blacklisting. This is one more good reason to use module aliases where possible, BTW... Respecting user-defined blacklisting is desirable. -- Jean Delvare