On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 18:19 -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 03:47 -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > > > I'm considering pushing an update to F-9 since v3.5+ is so much faster > > than previous releases - and it impacts boot time, but I have to admit > > that I was more concerned about F10 and rawhide until now. > > Oh, there's a slight issue with the handling of modules.order still for > the binary tries in newer module-init-tools. This might manifest in a > switch of e.g. module used in initrd for storage devices with multiple > modaliases. So...one question... We now have binary versions of files like "modules.dep", "modules.alias" and "modules.symbols". These end in ".bin" and *augment* but do not replace the textual versions of these files. If we find the binary files, we are *much* faster at loading modules - boot overhead is e.g. under one second. But we need to be able to make changes to these binary files in order to add ordering support, and also just for the future. Our plan is to freeze the old text file format (the "last" change will be the one made recently in which modules.dep can now have relative paths to save space) and to fallback to it whenever the binary format changes and modprobe finds older binary files. This works fine, but means that, if we upgrade module-init-tools and there is a binary format change, then the system will be "slow" booting before depmod has been re-run again. I'm thinking about just doing a "depmod -a" on upgrade in such cases in the future...is there a problem with that idea? Jon. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
