On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 13:24 +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 15:44 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > > We could possibly put these in a .fail block instead and always try to > > load, implementing the .tryload-module mechanism peter suggests. > > Just using .fail would generate unnecessary errors in the log, and it > would also cause the startup not to fail when a module exists but fails > to load. Peter's tryload-module suggestion would probably work, but I > don't see the need for adding complexity. Hmm, when I said that "Peter's tryload-module suggestion would probably work", I was recalling incorrectly what was discussed in an earlier thread. I thought that tryload-module would do something more than just being a shorthand for .nofail / load-module / .fail. (And no, I don't know what I thought it would do - I was just recalling that when I read Peter's suggestion the first time, it sounded like it would work.) -- Tanu --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Finland Oy Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4 Domiciled in Helsinki This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
