On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:10:30AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
doesn't modctl/modload return some error which indicate the reason
of failure?
EPERM which isn't really useful.
Oddly enough, it actually fails with EPERM on Sparc, but with ENOSYS on Xen.
Manuel pointed out that it might be
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 06:27:00PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
ENXIO seems appropriate.
Or even better: ENOSYS.
ENXIO is better, it means the requested subsystem is
unavailable/disabled.
--
David A. Holland
dholl...@netbsd.org
On Mar 27, 2012, at 3:15 PM, David Holland wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 06:27:00PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
ENXIO seems appropriate.
Or even better: ENOSYS.
ENXIO is better, it means the requested subsystem is
unavailable/disabled.
or ENOEXEC.
On Mar 25, 2012, at 10:35 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
hi,
doesn't modctl/modload return some error which indicate the reason
of failure?
EPERM which isn't really useful.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:25:23AM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
I like the kern.module.supported, or perhaps kern.module.enabled, as I
have systems built without module loading support yet still have a few
module sysctls around under that same hierarchy, and module.modular
also seems
hi,
On Mar 25, 2012, at 10:35 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
hi,
doesn't modctl/modload return some error which indicate the reason
of failure?
EPERM which isn't really useful.
then how about changing it so that it's more useful?
YAMAMOTO Takashi
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:58:40AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
hi,
On Mar 25, 2012, at 10:35 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
hi,
doesn't modctl/modload return some error which indicate the reason
of failure?
EPERM which isn't really useful.
then how about changing it so
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 06:27:00PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:17:08AM -0500, David Young wrote:
ENXIO seems appropriate.
Or even better: ENOSYS.
Careful with that, returning ENOSYS within the kernel often ends up
killing the current process with SIGSYS.
Thor
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 07:35:40AM +, David Holland wrote:
kern.module.supported = 1
means the same thing without this disadvantage.
Maybe (from a UI perspective this is all bogus and would need tons of
documentation) - but what about a
modstat -e
(e for enabled) instead, that
hi,
doesn't modctl/modload return some error which indicate the reason
of failure?
YAMAMOTO Takashi
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:12:34AM +, Iain Hibbert wrote:
sysctl doesn't need to be static of course, you could do the kauth check
and return a value based on whether you may load a module
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:47:31 +
David Holland dholland-t...@netbsd.org wrote:
But, how about kern.module.supported or kern.module.canload or
something?
I like the kern.module.supported, or perhaps kern.module.enabled, as I
have systems built without module loading support yet still have a
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 03:33:18AM -0400, Matthew Mondor wrote:
I like the kern.module.supported, or perhaps kern.module.enabled, as I
have systems built without module loading support yet still have a few
module sysctls around under that same
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:12:34AM +, Iain Hibbert wrote:
sysctl doesn't need to be static of course, you could do the kauth check
and return a value based on whether you may load a module or not, I don't
know if that will serve to disambiguate Xen?
No, this is not about XEN at all!
The
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:50:11AM +, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By: jruoho
Date: Tue Mar 20 05:50:11 UTC 2012
Modified Files:
src/tests/modules: t_abi_uvm.sh t_modload.sh
Log Message:
Skip Xen. XXX: There should be a reliable way to detect
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:25:25PM +, Martin Husemann wrote:
This (untested) would add one (sysctl kern.module.modular would say 0 for
non-modular kernels, or 1 otherwise).
I had to fix other parts of the kernel, but the patch now works as expected.
Any objections?
Martin
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 03:15:14PM +, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:25:25PM +, Martin Husemann wrote:
This (untested) would add one (sysctl kern.module.modular would say 0 for
non-modular kernels, or 1 otherwise).
I had to fix other parts of the kernel, but
looks good to me...
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:25:25PM +, Martin Husemann wrote:
This (untested) would add one (sysctl kern.module.modular would say 0 for
non-modular kernels, or 1 otherwise).
I had to fix other parts of the kernel, but the
17 matches
Mail list logo
