Re: [PATCH] Module alias and device table support.

Rusty Russell
2003-02-05T00:10:01Z

In message <200302040956.h149u8IR021827@eeyore.valparaiso.cl> you write:
> Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> said:
> > "insmod foo" will *always* get foo. The only exception is when "foo"
> > doesn't exist, in which case modprobe looks for another module which
> > explicitly says it can serve in the place of foo.
>
> OK.
>
> > This allows smooth transition when a driver is superceded, *if* the
> > new author wants it.
>
> I would't let this happen, ever. What if foo does exist and Aunt Tillie
> just didn't compile it?

Then they turned the config option off themselves.

> > Now, the netlink module *knows* it provides char-major-36: with
> > MODULE_ALIAS() it can say so.
>
> The "provides" is the missing clue... You are taking about "provides" (and
> mixing it up with "alias", something I still can't agree on), I'm talking
> about "alias". Maybe they should be separate? In your examples netlink
> _provides_ char-major-36, xyz3000 _provides_ binfmt-754, eepro100 _aliases_
> to eth0 here. First use is clearly in-kernel, second one is (or should
> always be IMVHO) out-of-kernel. Sure, could use the same infrastructure for
> simplicity.

That's a different debate.

This is how it works today, and how it has worked since before 2.2.
If you want to argue that another mechanism should be used instead,
that's a completely different issue (and not neccessarily something I
would disagree with, especially since hotplug is now a first class
citizen).

Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.