Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:21:44 +0200 From: Johannes Lundberg <johalun0@gmail.com> To: Matthew Macy <mmacy@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: priority of paths to kernel modules? Message-ID: <CAECmPwvBFTSBWm2CRSpY6iyBrhZfLgjkcwXfrYApTO0uSwAbmw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAPrugNqFT28HxsZ4q-HfbwATLeD0asDr_nE0ZbH0cHjYXQPh2Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAECmPwu5suk9xaf4zWFYgVW6kkuUiFb1DviVR6VmQttjJUd56g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPrugNqFT28HxsZ4q-HfbwATLeD0asDr_nE0ZbH0cHjYXQPh2Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:12 AM Matthew Macy <mmacy@freebsd.org> wrote: > No we're not. x86 and PPC will be disconnected from the build in a > subsequent commit during the freeze. Warner was simply too tired to > communicate this adequately and still meet the timeline that RE wanted. > > And take heart. Even if Warner weren't trying to balance the needs of RE > and the graphics team + user base on post-2013 hardware - the graphics > doesn't _have_ to support 12.x. it's well within the team's rights to > simply declare 12.x as unsupported. The team is welcome to simply say we > support 11.x and 13.x. The failing was largely in that "expected" processes > are not documented and not well communicated. > > Warner is acting in good faith. He's just trying to balance many demands > in a compressed time period. > > Cheers. > -M > > OK, thanks for the clarification. That's a good compromise I guess. Still, regardless of drm, aren't modules in overlay folders suppose to have higher priority than those in the kernel folder? > > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:06 Johannes Lundberg <johalun0@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Since we now stuck with drm2 in base for a few more years I have an idea >> would make things much smoother for many of us, hugely reduce the amount >> of >> bug reports we get and I think would be beneficial in other ways too. >> >> Current I run with something like this in /boot/loader.conf >> >> >> module_path="/boot/modules.drm-v4.16;/boot/modules;/boot/dtb;/boot/overlays" >> >> So I expect modules to be loaded in that order, with /boot/<mykernel> >> LAST. >> >> However, if you look at this >> sysctl kern.module_path >> kern.module_path: >> >> /boot/kernel;/boot/modules.drm-v4.16;/boot/modules;/boot/dtb;/boot/overlays >> >> /boot/kernel is inserted first and probably modules in /boot/kernel have >> the highest priority. This is also proven by everyone wanting to use >> drm*kmods that get drm.ko from base loaded instead of the installed in >> /boot/modules. >> >> Please correct me if I'm wrong but if my understanding is correct this is >> a >> flaw and /boot/<mykernel> should be inserted last so that any overlays or >> custom modules have higher priority than the default ones. >> >> I can imagine this is also useful when building custom modules and you >> don't want to overwrite or delete the default one in /boot/kernel... >> >> Cheers >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org >> " >> >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAECmPwvBFTSBWm2CRSpY6iyBrhZfLgjkcwXfrYApTO0uSwAbmw>