Bug#597658: Wouldn't it be better solved the /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.conf?

2011-01-31 Thread Aurelien Jarno
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 06:59:50PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 02:41:50PM +0200, Klaus Umbach wrote: > > Wouldn't it be better, to put the module in /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.conf, > > instead of disabling it completely? So those who are able to use it, can > > still load

Bug#597658: Wouldn't it be better solved the /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.conf?

2010-10-25 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 02:41:50PM +0200, Klaus Umbach wrote: > Wouldn't it be better, to put the module in /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.conf, > instead of disabling it completely? So those who are able to use it, can > still load it and do not have to build their own kernel. blacklist.conf applies t

Bug#597658: Wouldn't it be better solved the /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.conf?

2010-10-22 Thread Klaus Umbach
Wouldn't it be better, to put the module in /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.conf, instead of disabling it completely? So those who are able to use it, can still load it and do not have to build their own kernel. This module lowers the CPU usage of kcryptd from 90% to 25% on my machine, when writing to d