[arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4
aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Sun Mar 9 07:18:46 EDT 2008
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa at gmx.de> wrote:
> Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
> > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Daniel Isenmann <daniel.isenmann at gmx.de>
> > > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:37:24 -0600 "Aaron Griffin"
> <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > c) The *only* thing that is appropriate is to autoblacklist them via
> > > > modprobe rules.. Doing it the previous way is absolute crap.
> > >
> > > I have done this and it works. I manually add the nvidiafb to
> > > modprobe.conf, but that's not a solution, just a workaround for me. It
> > > should be placed in a modprobe.d/ file instead, if we will do it.
> > Right, the reason I bring this up is that apparently some people are
> > against using a modprobe.d file for this.
> > Funny question though, if we make a
> > /etc/modprobe.d/framebuffer_blacklist file, or something, what package
> > does it belong to? I almost think it should be part of the kernel, but
> > that seems weird.
> It should belong to udev because udev loads it, kernel doesn't make sense.
Er? No. Modprobe loads it. udev calls a script that calls modprobe. We
are not talking about where the CURRENT frambuffer blacklist exists,
because I'm sure we all agree it is inefficient and broken. I'm
talking about where it SHOULD be.
More information about the arch-dev-public