On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> [ CC'ing Rusty ] >> >> Rusty, when facing module loops, shouldn't we let depmod fail? kmod and >> module-init-tools since always just warned about them, but it's really a >> bug in the module if they exist. See below. > > Yes. Soft dependencies can loop, but hard dependencies should barf. Ok, then we shouldn't need to fix anything here. Just make depmod die early and maybe add a better error message (like saying A -> B -> C -> A, instead of only saying that A, B and C are in a loop like we do today) > Note that in the case where two modules could satisfy a dependencies, > it may not be a real loop? What do you mean here? How could that be the case for *depmod*? Lucas De Marchi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-modules" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
