From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:07:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:07:11 -0500 Received: from x101-201-249-dhcp.reshalls.umn.edu ([128.101.201.249]:2944 "EHLO arashi.yi.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:07:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:15:21 -0600 From: Matt Reppert To: Jeff Garzik Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au Subject: Re: [PATCH] mii module broken under new scheme Message-Id: <20021119121521.3789388a.arashi@arashi.yi.org> In-Reply-To: <3DDA7A30.4010403@pobox.com> References: <20021119115041.11ece7dc.arashi@arashi.yi.org> <3DDA7A30.4010403@pobox.com> Organization: Yomerashi X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-message-flag: : This mail sent from host minerva, please respond. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:51:44 -0500 Jeff Garzik wrote: > Matt Reppert wrote: > > > drivers/net/mii.c doesn't export module init/cleanup functions. That > > means it > > can't be loaded under the new module scheme. This patch adds do-nothing > > functions for it, which allows it to load. (8139too depends on mii, so > > without this I don't have network.) > > ahhh! I was wondering what was up, but since I was busy with other > things I just compiled it into the kernel and continued on my way. > > That's a bug in the new module loader. Not so sure I agree ... recompiled the kernel with debugging output in module.c and when I try to insert mii.o without above patch it complains "Module has no name!" and returns -ENOEXEC from the syscall. I think naming mii.o would be a good idea. This may not be the best way to do it, but it works. (Granted, I'm not terribly familiar with all the modules code changes yet, but ... ) Having anonymous output in lsmod would be somewhat confusing :) ("Well, whatever it is, 8139too needs it, don't touch it!") Just noticed above patch is -p0. Whoops. Matt