Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>