[OE-core] update-alternatives and kernel modules
Mark Hatle
mark.hatle at windriver.com
Wed Mar 13 13:35:02 UTC 2013
On 3/13/13 8:07 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com> wrote:
>> I have someone who is trying to use update-alternatives with kernel modules.
>>
>> They discovered that the rename code changes the name of the module to end
>> in .ko.${BPN}. While the package.bbclass code specifically looks for the
>> file name to end in '.ko' in order to avoid stripping the modules... so of
>> course the modules get stripped and no longer work properly.
>>
>> So my question is, is it even reasonable to use update-alternatives with
>> kernel modules? If it is, we probably need to change the trigger in
>> packages.bbclass to look for either .ko or .ko.${BPN} (or something
>> similar).
>>
>> Any comments/suggestions?
>
> I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what they are trying
> to achieve. Can you describe it from a non-packaging point of view ?
>
> i.e. do they have two kernel modules that provide the same sort of
> services to the kernel and they want to switch between the two of
> them based on the alternatives mechanism ?
Yes, that is exactly it. For some reason they have two kernel modules that have
the same name, same external behavior.. but internally there are code changes.
Using the update-alternatives mechanism they have selected one version is
"better" then the other.
(Frankly this seems bogus to me.. which is why I'm asking the question. Is this
even supported or is this simply "don't do that".)
--Mark
> Cheers,
>
> Bruce
>
>> --Mark
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
>
>
More information about the Openembedded-core
mailing list