[OE-core] [PATCH 07/37] modutils-initscripts: fix wrong order of module loading happening in udev

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 04/25/2011 10:14 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
>> On 04/25/2011 09:49 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
>>> On 04/25/2011 05:02 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
>>>> On 04/23/2011 12:28 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
>>>>> From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20=C5=A0tetiar?=<ynezz at true.cz>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the current state, udev init script is loaded as 3rd and
>>>>> modutils.sh as
>>>>> 20th, so udevadm called in udev init script loads all kernel modules
>>>>> in some
>>>>> unpredictable order, not honoring in any way specified order of
>>>>> modules in
>>>>> /etc/modules. This causes some troubles mainly in the first boot. So
>>>>> to fix
>>>>> this we now move loading of the kernel modules just before we exec
>>>>> udev init
>>>>> script. Example of the current state:
>>>>>
>>>>> Starting udev
>>>>> rtc-m48t86 rtc-m48t86: rtc core: registered m48t86 as rtc0
>>>>> rtc-m48t86 rtc-m48t86: battery ok
>>>>> ep93xx-rtc ep93xx-rtc: rtc core: registered ep93xx-rtc as rtc1
>>>>>
>>>>> root at ts72xx:~# cat /etc/modules
>>>>> rtc-ep93xx
>>>>> ohci-hcd
>>>>> ts72xx_sbcinfo
>>>>> rtc-m48t86
>>>>>
>>>>> As you can guess, this is really wrong behaviour, because I've rtc1 as
>>>>> the
>>>>> main time source for my system.
>>>>>
>>>>> root at ts72xx:~# cat /etc/default/hwclock
>>>>> HWCLOCKACCESS=yes
>>>>> HWCLOCKDEVICE=/dev/rtc1
>>>>>
>>>>> Expected behaviour with this patch applied:
>>>>>
>>>>> Please wait: booting...
>>>>> ep93xx-rtc ep93xx-rtc: rtc core: registered ep93xx-rtc as rtc0
>>>>> usbcore: registered new device driver usb
>>>>> ohci_hcd: USB 1.1 'Open' Host Controller (OHCI) Driver
>>>>> ...
>>>>> rtc-m48t86 rtc-m48t86: rtc core: registered m48t86 as rtc1
>>>>> rtc-m48t86 rtc-m48t86: battery ok
>>>>> Starting udev
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Petr Štetiar<ynezz at true.cz>
>>>>>
>>>>> (based on http://patches.openembedded.org/patch/1917/)
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi<koen at dominion.thruhere.net>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Saul Wold<sgw at linux.intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> .../modutils/modutils-initscripts.bb | 4 ++--
>>>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/modutils/modutils-initscripts.bb
>>>>> b/meta/recipes-kernel/modutils/modutils-initscripts.bb
>>>>> index 1665955..5ae34b4 100644
>>>>> --- a/meta/recipes-kernel/modutils/modutils-initscripts.bb
>>>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/modutils/modutils-initscripts.bb
>>>>> @@ -4,10 +4,10 @@ LICENSE = "PD"
>>>>> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://LICENSE;md5=7bf87fc37976e93ec66ad84fac58c098"
>>>>> SRC_URI = "file://modutils.sh \
>>>>> file://PD.patch"
>>>>> -PR = "r4"
>>>>> +PR = "r5"
>>>>>
>>>>> INITSCRIPT_NAME = "modutils.sh"
>>>>> -INITSCRIPT_PARAMS = "start 20 S ."
>>>>> +INITSCRIPT_PARAMS = "start 2 S ."
>>>>>
>>>>> inherit update-rc.d
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Should there not be a corresponding change to modutils_2.4.27.bb? It's
>>>> not clear to me
>>>> where there are these two separate recipes, but they should at least be
>>>> kept in sync.
>>>>
>>> Gary,
>>>
>>> Could you please resend this as a proper patch with Signed-off-by and commit info.
>>
>> Attached.  However, as Koen pointed out, perhaps this recipe should just be dropped,
>> at least for Poky?  I don't know that 2.4 kernels are built or supported?
>
>
> Right, so for clarification, for 2.4 kernels, images should be built
> using just the modutils_2.4.27.bb recipe. For 2.6 kernels, images should
> be built using module_init_tools and modutils-initscripts.
>
> In oe-core, task-base requires module-init-tools and task-core-boot
> requires modutils-initscripts. That actually seems backwards to me as
> modutils-initscripts is useless without module-init-tools.
>
> There is a considerable amount of cruft in the kernel base classes
> related to older kernels which I'd like to see purged. Perhaps a
> meta-linux-2.4 layer would be a good place to keep things like these as
> well as the modutils_2.4.27 recipe.

Do we have usecases to even support 2.4 anymore ? I would suggest
to remove it if no use cases are reported.

>
> However, in terms of the immediate issue, I agree with Gary's patch.
>
> --
> Darren Hart
> Intel Open Source Technology Center
> Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>