devfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] configuration for modprobe

To: Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] configuration for modprobe
From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:40:05 -0700
Cc: devfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200111231235.fANCZFd18427@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200111162309.AAA05838@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200111230427.fAN4RO207006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200111231235.fANCZFd18427@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-devfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Yann Droneaud writes:
> > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 21:27:24 -0700
> > From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: devfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > References: <200111162309.AAA05838@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Content-Length: 2392
> > 
> > Yann Droneaud writes:
> > > here is a quite big patch against devfsd v1.3.18.
> > 
> > Yes, too big. It does more than one thing, so it makes it harder for
> > me to pick and choose things I like and reject things I don't like.
> > Since there's bits I didn't like, the whole patch is rejected.
> > 
> 
> Ok, but i don't think i can split it, since all things are related.

Well, some things you could have split. Like the GNUmakefile
changes. And the formatting changes. And the spelling changes. I know
it's more work for you, but it's less work for me :-)

> > > This enable user to select which modprobe to use,
> > > This also let the user specify arguments to pass to it.
> > >  The config options could be put in devfsd.conf or on command line.
> > >  Command line options have a higher priority.
> > 
> > I think this level of flexbility isn't needed. I have yet to see a
> > good reason why modprobe isn't in /sbin. Furthermore, adding these
> > configuration options bloats the code more. I'm taking a hard line
> > with extra code, because I want devfsd to be very small. Think
> > embedded systems.
> 
> Yes it's not designed for embedded target, but it could be a build
>  time option (a #define FULL_DEVFSD) to make it more versatile. It's
>  up to you. If you decided it's really > not interesting, don't
>  include those functionnalities.  > I will use them for my private
>  use (quite limited, i could simply hard code the modprobe and flags
>  i wanted)

Well, I don't mind adding stuff to the GNUmakefile to make it a
compile-time option. That won't bloat the code. Two questions:

- why do you want to change the location of modprobe
- why do you want to pass extra flags to it?

> > Grrr, "programme" is *correct* spelling. This is just annoying. Before
> > attempting to correct my spelling, check with the OED (Oxford English
> > Dictionary).
> 
> Sorry, i didn't know that correct spelling is 'programme', this
> sound too much like the french word. This is why i 'corrected' them.

Hey, half of English is French anyway (remember the Normans?). Which
is why I always get a chuckle when I hear about French language laws
which are designed to keep English out (i.e. keep out half of
French:-).

> > "resetup" isn't a real word.
> 
> Frenchies like me are not rigorous with the language. This is the
>  only reasons i see ;)

<cough>
In any case, I'm a pedant.

BTW: I've got a bunch of changes which are pending for the next
release. Any patches you send now could easily break.

                                Regards,

                                        Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Current:   rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>