sparc and ia64 (itanium).
Also, reorganize the insmod architecture support code to be
alphasorted and less messy.
Update the readme to list current insmod arch support.
This is a bulk spelling fix patch against busybox-1.00-pre10.
If anyone gets a corrupted copy (and cares), let me know and
I will make alternate arrangements.
Erik - please apply.
Authors - please check that I didn't corrupt any meaning.
Package importers - see if any of these changes should be
passed to the upstream authors.
I glossed over lots of sloppy capitalizations, missing apostrophes,
mixed American/British spellings, and German-style compound words.
What is "pretect redefined for test" in cmdedit.c?
Good luck on the 1.00 release!
- Larry
Hello everyone,
Busybox's insmod fails to locate a module when that module is the only one
existing in the /lib/modules directory (with a unique name).
Example:
# find /lib/modules/ -type f
/lib/modules/kernel/drivers/char/bios.o
# insmod bios
insmod: bios.o: no module by that name found
# touch /lib/modules/dummy
# find /lib/modules/ -type f
/lib/modules/kernel/drivers/char/bios.o
/lib/modules/dummy
# insmod bios
Using /lib/modules/kernel/drivers/char/bios.o
As long as there is another file in the /lib/modules directory, insmod
finds it OK.
I tracked the problem down to 'check_module_name_match()' in insmod.c:
It returns TRUE when a match is found, and FALSE otherwise. In the case
where there is only one module in the /lib/modules directory (or more that
one module, but all with the same name), 'recursive_action()' will return
TRUE and we end up on line 4196 in 'insmod.c' which returns an error.
[The reason it works with more than one module with different
names is that in this case there will always be one not matching,
'recursive_action()' will return FALSE and we end up in line 4189.]
Now, from the implementation of 'recursive_action()' and from other
usages of it (tar.c, etc.), it seems to me that FALSE should be returned
to indicate that we want to stop the recursion, so TRUE and FALSE should
be inverted in 'check_module_name_match()'.
At the same time, 'recursive_action()' continues to recurse even after
the recursive call has returned FALSE; again in my understanding and
other usages of it, we can safely stop recursing at this point.
Here is my patch against 1.00-pre8:
Erik, I think we have met online some time ago when I was in Corel/Rebel
Netwinder project....
Anyway, I would like to use BB on 2.6.0 initrd. 1.00-pre4 works OK, if
insmod is actually presented with a full path to the module. Otherwise -
problems (not to mention conflicts when 2.4 modutil is enabled)
Here are some patches for insmod and modprobe which try to walk around
the default ".o" module format for 2.2/2.4 modules (you have probably
noticed it is now .ko in 2.6 ;-)) Trying to steal as little space as
possible if 2.6 not enabled...
The modprobe is still not perfect on 2.6 - seems to be jamming on some
dependencies, but works with some (to be debugged). Anyway after the
patches it at least tries to work....
Will there be a 1.00-pre5 coming any time soon?
Thanks, Woody
