From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Aug 24 14:11:38 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 2D803108AF42 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 14:11:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F78B8725B; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 14:11:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id w7OEBX8F095141; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id w7OEBXg8095140; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <201808241411.w7OEBXg8095140@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: priority of paths to kernel modules? In-Reply-To: To: Kyle Evans Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT) CC: johalun0@gmail.com, Matthew Macy , FreeBSD Current X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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 14:11:38 -0000 > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 3:22 AM Johannes Lundberg wrote: > > > > 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. The deprececation policy is documented, though poorly, and I agree in the spirit that much of the processes here in the FreeBSD project are sadly in a similiar situation. Since we are in code freeze we could all go work on those things :-) > > > 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? I agree, but usually do not depend on that to get what I need, but rather resort to any special needs by force loading with /boot/loader.conf modules that are loaded out of order. > (Putting on my loader ballcap) > > I would like to change this after 12 branches to append by default and > allow one to add ${kernel_path} to their module_path to override that, > since the status quo has been such for 18 years and some may want to > go back to that. I've personally been bitten by it a couple too many > times to be happy with the current situation. > > (Takes off loader ballcap) I actually like this solution, it appears to be a win for everyone and would make the road smoother in the future for similiar types of things should they happen. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org