From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Aug 16 17:10:26 2019 Received: (at 30604) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Aug 2019 21:10:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55071 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hyjUQ-00055M-5q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:10:26 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47204) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hyjUO-000557-MQ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:10:24 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:59360) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hyjUI-0006ff-97; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:10:18 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=50870 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hyjUH-0007Zl-Sk; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:10:18 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Danny Milosavljevic Subject: Re: bug#34902: guix cannot find a module on boot References: <813466538d530a38bddf60ed348cb75b@lepiller.eu> <87o967lxsa.fsf@gnu.org> <20190318231359.217af9f4@scratchpost.org> <87wokq4ptt.fsf@gnu.org> <20190404224217.5ddd00f7@scratchpost.org> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 23:10:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20190404224217.5ddd00f7@scratchpost.org> (Danny Milosavljevic's message of "Thu, 4 Apr 2019 22:42:17 +0200") Message-ID: <874l2gg6ko.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 30604 Cc: Julien Lepiller , 34902-done@debbugs.gnu.org, 30604@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hello! Danny Milosavljevic skribis: > Maybe I'm too paranoid but can we have "guix" in the file name "modules.n= ame" > somewhere? Otherwise I see it coming that upstream uses modules.name for= an > incompatible purpose and then we'd be with a guix interface that's broken > and/or break their interface. > > (So much complexity for something so silly. Honestly, I feel like E-mail= ing > the upstream author and telling him what I think. WTF :P) > > Should we warn when we use the fallback? I like the defensive programming > but I feel we shouldn't have it *silently* fall back when the database is > broken/missing. > > Otherwise LGTM! So I went ahead and pushed these patches, derived from our beautiful patch set at : c85ccf60bf linux-modules: Define and use a module name database. e1a9a7f275 linux-modules: Add 'load-linux-modules-from-directory'. 2a693b69ca linux-modules: Add "modules.devname" writer. 4f8b9d1a6f linux-modules: Add "modules.alias" writer. The actual fix for the hyphen/underscore mismatch that Julien reported is commit c85ccf60bf. The =E2=80=9Cmodules.devname=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cm= odules.alias=E2=80=9D are actually unused so far but (1) it was easier to preserve them, and (2) that=E2=80=99ll give us an incentive to finish . :-) I added an explicit comment that =E2=80=9Cmodules.name=E2=80=9D uses a Guix= -specific format. We can always rename it if the kernel folks decide to acquire that file name. Julien, could you please confirm that your initial issue is fixed? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.