From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Aug 24 08:22:23 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A647B10837E3 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:22:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from johalun0@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 236A47CEEE; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:22:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from johalun0@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id b19-v6so776493wme.3; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 01:22:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NDG/DFm35CGdio7ifVXIe0J/b/b8qSXRAPBe6JYeeNQ=; b=RQg/bgpJ6ZpZO8qiIdahdeD/oLjZa+A7feyf09GLL1YYrc7neMFDW58t2qixY8Fh4e WzAkZWijvs3zmwMntt4WsPSBhIJBX6GqGalloaW53/PlIzLfIkTni2r1D8w2SUzYBpCQ 55Di2WdJO/JByExTjWhLt2PQtCE1ONToaDX5YPnuPS1feduHGj8NyEKMaoIzNmmEpWAr 8BPMEq4NY78AABTUVtZC+SGJG0f6qpw4x1DLU2DMFrUv6UCYPlDpLD0+sT0+vPg0B4yC f9XZyptd+dFkFE/BEPwaN3KMNQ/m+YX0Ox2oXLKECVJTSyjrxVdxd7VG1DzjSLFgHjxg QkAw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NDG/DFm35CGdio7ifVXIe0J/b/b8qSXRAPBe6JYeeNQ=; b=M3Uh8Ma2AKt06X9mubiVmj1mCD/VFAddJ9RMqYOzZu3lbe6hZEkGqK0RyazsS/ZAuL /c+YWZ3KFb23BkUuQDPBsbWjwziuZiw1oYgPv+2mAT1WjeUoJHW++pntTTHK//rvQpq4 I0N/V8p/LtfBY0xg1lQMBryAxC9q4nJa8zvMyzOW/t9MDC4eryjGyyIyP7exImIPkt51 Wi3x31WcBJFqcMk/ZANyx51lnwsM8X0EcS/swd8hn3Q9VpRemjld6MaiJY5aTy7Le3t9 JMDE/UbMVuIO2+eIaHz0PnNcPSsT0veCxVk2rTmhin8nJoQkknOZO+6l693wL1XcS9eF vVAg== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51AJ3AEG4JsAcZKkCTMsStlVOAEXAGWYGQuaPjHt917M3crcJoMz HqqTjIGcV0fFj3a/ymOWfbbAl4+gsFaTLpuGuoluXA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdYrAoV1wjIhEcGK+yHpPCP9xYI8B2yWURYAwKIgnZgW+JZpNVayM/9W95SCCR1SXsra4SQoO0jOlsX2SLZx7qA= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:af53:: with SMTP id y80-v6mr673840wme.55.1535098941948; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 01:22:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Johannes Lundberg Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:21:44 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: priority of paths to kernel modules? To: Matthew Macy Cc: freebsd-current Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.27 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:22:23 -0000 On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:12 AM Matthew Macy 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 > 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/ >> 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/ 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 >> " >> >