On Apr 9, 2005 12:07 PM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 12:03:45PM +0200, Magnus Damm wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps they should start using initramfs then.
> >
> > But how does that help me? I still want to be able to pass a list of
> > unwanted modules on the kernel com
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 12:03:45PM +0200, Magnus Damm wrote:
>
> > Perhaps they should start using initramfs then.
>
> But how does that help me? I still want to be able to pass a list of
> unwanted modules on the kernel command line. Using initramfs and
> modules is fine, although I would prefer
On Apr 9, 2005 11:48 AM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 11:43:59AM +0200, Magnus Damm wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps your favourite distribution could build that as a module to
> > > start with.
> >
> > Right. Today distributions can boot from external usb-storage devices
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 11:43:59AM +0200, Magnus Damm wrote:
>
> > Perhaps your favourite distribution could build that as a module to
> > start with.
>
> Right. Today distributions can boot from external usb-storage devices,
> maybe even from firewire hardware as I am sure you know. I guess they
On Apr 9, 2005 3:42 AM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Magnus Damm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Say a kernel shipped with your favourite distribution crashes your
> > machine during boot-up - wouldn't it be nice to be able to just
> > disable the problematic module from the kernel co
Magnus Damm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Say a kernel shipped with your favourite distribution crashes your
> machine during boot-up - wouldn't it be nice to be able to just
> disable the problematic module from the kernel command line instead of
Perhaps your favourite distribution could build
On Apr 7, 2005 4:38 AM, Horst von Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AsterixTheGaul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > -#define module_init(x) __initcall(x);
> > > +#define module_init(x) __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x);
> >
> > It would be better if there is brackets around them... like
> >
>
On Apr 7, 2005 7:29 PM, Randy.Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:22:57 -0400 (EDT) Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> | Can't you disable module-loading with a module? I think so.
> | You don't need to modify the kernel. Boot-scripts could
> | just load the "final" module and there
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:22:57PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> >| Anyway, besides nitpicking, is there any reason not to include this
> >| code? Or is the added feature considered plain bloat? Yes, the kernel
> >| will become a bit larger, but all the data added by this patch will go
>
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:22:57 -0400 (EDT) Richard B. Johnson wrote:
| On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
|
| > On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:23:32 +0200 Magnus Damm wrote:
| >
| > | On Apr 7, 2005 4:23 AM, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > > > -#define module_init(x) __initcall(x);
| >
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:23:32 +0200 Magnus Damm wrote:
| On Apr 7, 2005 4:23 AM, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > > > -#define module_init(x) __initcall(x);
| > > > +#define module_init(x) __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x);
| > >
| > > It
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:23:32 +0200 Magnus Damm wrote:
| On Apr 7, 2005 4:23 AM, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > > > -#define module_init(x) __initcall(x);
| > > > +#define module_init(x) __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x);
| > >
| > > It would be better if there is brackets ar
AsterixTheGaul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > -#define module_init(x) __initcall(x);
> > +#define module_init(x) __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x);
>
> It would be better if there is brackets around them... like
>
> #define module_init(x) { __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x); }
>
> the
On Apr 7, 2005 4:23 AM, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > -#define module_init(x) __initcall(x);
> > > +#define module_init(x) __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x);
> >
> > It would be better if there is brackets around them... like
> >
> > #define module_init(x) { __initcall(
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Magnus Damm wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2005 4:28 PM, Malcolm Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Magnus Damm writes:
> > > And I guess the idea of replacing the initcall pointer with NULL will
> > > work both with and without function descriptors, right? So we should
> > > be safe on I
> > -#define module_init(x) __initcall(x);
> > +#define module_init(x) __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x);
>
> It would be better if there is brackets around them... like
>
> #define module_init(x) { __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x); }
>
> then we know it wont break some code l
Hi,
> -#define module_init(x) __initcall(x);
> +#define module_init(x) __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x);
It would be better if there is brackets around them... like
#define module_init(x) { __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x); }
then we know it wont break some code like
if (..)
mod
On Apr 6, 2005 4:28 PM, Malcolm Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Magnus Damm writes:
> > And I guess the idea of replacing the initcall pointer with NULL will
> > work both with and without function descriptors, right? So we should
> > be safe on IA64 and PPC64.
>
> I think so, though I don't rea
Magnus Damm writes:
Regardless of anything else, won't this break booting with initcall_debug on
PPC64/IA64 machines? (see the definition of print_fn_descriptor_symbol() in
kallsyms.h)
Correct, thanks for pointing that out. The code below is probably better:
static void __init do_initcalls(void)
On Apr 6, 2005 12:32 PM, Malcolm Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Magnus Damm writes:
> > Here comes version 2 of the disable built-in patch.
>
> > +void __init disable_initcall(void *fn)
> > +{
> > + initcall_t *call;
> > +
> > + for (call = __initcall_start; call < __initcall_end; call+
Magnus Damm writes:
Here comes version 2 of the disable built-in patch.
+void __init disable_initcall(void *fn)
+{
+ initcall_t *call;
+
+ for (call = __initcall_start; call < __initcall_end; call++) {
+
+ if (*call == fn)
+ *call = NULL;
+ }
+
Here comes version 2 of the disable built-in patch.
This patch makes it possible to disable built-in code from the kernel
command line. The patch is rather simple - it extends the compiled-in case
of module_init() to include __setup() with a name based on KBUILD_MODNAME.
As an example, if you wa
22 matches
Mail list logo
