From: Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>
To: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>
Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: update-alternatives and kernel modules
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:48:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130313134823.GI3260@jama> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51408086.6020703@windriver.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1848 bytes --]
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 08:35:02AM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 3/13/13 8:07 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com> wrote:
> >> I have someone who is trying to use update-alternatives with kernel modules.
> >>
> >> They discovered that the rename code changes the name of the module to end
> >> in .ko.${BPN}. While the package.bbclass code specifically looks for the
> >> file name to end in '.ko' in order to avoid stripping the modules... so of
> >> course the modules get stripped and no longer work properly.
> >>
> >> So my question is, is it even reasonable to use update-alternatives with
> >> kernel modules? If it is, we probably need to change the trigger in
> >> packages.bbclass to look for either .ko or .ko.${BPN} (or something
> >> similar).
> >>
> >> Any comments/suggestions?
> >
> > I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what they are trying
> > to achieve. Can you describe it from a non-packaging point of view ?
> >
> > i.e. do they have two kernel modules that provide the same sort of
> > services to the kernel and they want to switch between the two of
> > them based on the alternatives mechanism ?
>
> Yes, that is exactly it. For some reason they have two kernel modules that have
> the same name, same external behavior.. but internally there are code changes.
> Using the update-alternatives mechanism they have selected one version is
> "better" then the other.
>
> (Frankly this seems bogus to me.. which is why I'm asking the question. Is this
> even supported or is this simply "don't do that".)
Cannot you rename them in do_install to module-foo.${BPN}.ko and set
ALTERNATIVE_TARGET_kernel-module-foo[foo] to module-foo.${BPN}.ko ?
--
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-13 14:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-12 22:32 update-alternatives and kernel modules Mark Hatle
2013-03-13 13:07 ` Bruce Ashfield
2013-03-13 13:35 ` Mark Hatle
2013-03-13 13:48 ` Martin Jansa [this message]
2013-03-13 15:05 ` Mark Hatle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130313134823.GI3260@jama \
--to=martin.jansa@gmail.com \
--cc=mark.hatle@windriver.com \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox