On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 11:11 +0200, Andrew wrote: > 12.11.2010 20:24, davidMbrooke пишет: > > > > I see that we are using "CONFIG_MODPROBE_SMALL" rather than > > "CONFIG_MODPROBE" for BusyBox. Is there a good reason for that? Would > > switching to CONFIG_MODPROBE be a practical option? > > > > > From comparing the source code (modprobe.c versus modprobe-small.c) it > > seems to me that modprobe.c would give us (more) standard Debian > > behaviour... > > > > dMb > As I remembered, standard modprobe requires presence of System.map (file > with kernel symbols) which has huge size. But I can mistake.
Hi Andrew, Is it fairly easy to check on that? I will soon be off-line until tomorrow, and I know you wanted a quick answer on this, so my thinking is: - If CONFIG_MODPROBE is a practical option (e.g. no need for System.map) then I would prefer to change to that. - If CONFIG_MODPROBE is *not* a practical option I am OK with patching BusyBox - kp convinced me :-) If we do patch BusyBox then IMHO /etc/modprobe.d/ would not be the best name, because standard Debian has different behaviour for this directory. See http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-modules.html and in particular: You can choose arbitrary names for the configuration files in /etc/modprobe.d and put multiple options lines in the same file. I think that is not true in the case of BusyBox. Maybe /etc/module-options.d/ or just /etc/modules.d/ ? dMb ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Centralized Desktop Delivery: Dell and VMware Reference Architecture Simplifying enterprise desktop deployment and management using Dell EqualLogic storage and VMware View: A highly scalable, end-to-end client virtualization framework. Read more! http://p.sf.net/sfu/dell-eql-dev2dev _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
