On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Michal Marek <mmarek@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Dne 3.7.2013 23:17, Andy Lutomirski napsal(a): >> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Michal Marek <mmarek@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Dne 1.7.2013 18:33, Jonathan Masters napsal(a): >>>> One caveat. Sometimes we have manufactured parameters intentionally >>>> to cause a module to fail. We should standardize that piece. >>> >>> You have: >>> >>> blacklist foo >>> >>> to prevent udev from loading a module and >>> >>> install foo /bin/true >>> >>> to prevent modprobe from loading the module at all. What is the >>> motivation for inventing a third way, through adding invalid parameters? >>> >> >> FWIW, I've occasionally booted with modulename.garbage=1 to prevent >> modulename from loading at boot. It may be worth adding a more >> intentional way to do that. > > Hm, right, there seems to be no clean way to achieve this via a > commandline argument. Maybe define a magic module option to tell the > module loader not to load a module? modprobe.blacklist=modname1,modname2,... is already there, though all the silliness of blacklist applies unless "-b" is passed (that's the equivalent behavior of udev) Lucas De Marchi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
