On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 09:36:03PM +0100, scr wrote: > > It looks like (I haven´t digged deeply) those scripts > `modutils´ and `kerneld´ from /etc/init.d are responsible > for several warnings I get during boot of a hand-rolled > kernel (I think it´s kernel-source from plain potato, > although I have "unofficial" CDs). > > Well, I get several warnings because > modules are not implemented at all > *and* > kerneld gets started > although I don´t need all this stuff (I think). > > Is there a mistake in those /etc/inid.d scripts? > Shouldn´t a "autodetection" if booted from a monolithic > kernel be built into them? > Well, I could remove some scripts/symlinks, but then > a modularized kernel wouldn´t boot, right? its true that the tests used in the kerneld initscript is flawed, it checks for /proc/sys/kernel/modprobe which will not exist in two cases: 1) your running 2.0 kernels, and thus need kerneld 2) your running 2.2 without loadable module support. the flawed assumption here is that nobody will ever build a kernel not supporting modules. you can however delete or disable the kerneld script entirely without any problems since its only relevent for 2.0 kernels, so long as you don't plan to run 2.0 kernels you will never need kenreld i don't see any problems with the modutils script, it should abort if /proc/modules is missing which should only occur for kernels without module support. here is a patch for /etc/init.d/kerneld: --- /etc/init.d/kerneld Sat Oct 21 13:36:39 2000 +++ /tmp/kerneld Mon Dec 4 01:38:12 2000 @@ -5,7 +5,15 @@ KDOPT="" -test -f /proc/sys/kernel/modprobe && exit 0 +# kerneld only works on 2.0 kernels +case `uname -r` in + 2.0.*) + ;; + *) + exit 0 + ;; +esac + test -f /proc/modules || exit 0 test -f /sbin/kerneld || exit 0 feel free to file a bug against modutils with this patch. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpKHcBNpMm4m.pgp
Description: PGP signature