On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:23:56AM +0000, Andrew McGuinness wrote: > ScruLoose wrote: > >Hm. I don't *think* that worked, but I'm not entirely sure. > >The i82092 module loads, but subsequent attempts to modprobe > >pcnet_cs result in the familiar error: > > Hmmm. I would have expected loading the module to fail. Was there any > output at all on "modprobe i82092". Did anything appear in > /var/log/syslog? Yep, "modprobe i82092" produced this output: Linux Kernel Card Services 3.1.22 options: [pci] [cardbus] [pm] Warning: loading /lib/modules/2.4.18-1-586tsc/kernel/drivers/pcmcia/i82092.o will taint the kernel: no licence The first two lines of that show up in syslog too, but the warning doesn't. i82092 shows up in lsmod as being "unused"... > >Does this look like the module doesn't support my hardware, or is there > >some sort of vital step I'm leaving out in between there? > > > Not sure. My situation right now stands with pcmcia_core and i82092 listed in lsmod; modprobe-ing pcnet_cs fails after complaining about "ds: no socket drivers loaded!"; and modprobe-ing ds itself fails with that same complaint. And a note: if I boot into the old 2.2.20 kernel with "skip i82365" in discover's config, then it boots up with no pcmcia modules loaded except pcmcia_core. I can then modprobe i82365, and then I can modprobe pcnet_cs, and it succeeds, and the link light comes on on my dongle. So I *think* I can conclude from this that the behaviour under 2.4 indicates a "module doesn't support the hardware" kind of problem... does that sound reasonable? > >Now, when you say "refers to it"... Is this information I should know > >where to look for myself? > > > Not really; I was digging around in kernel sources. Um. I'll hazard a guess that it's a bit early for me to get into that. ;-) > >That does lead me to another question: would it be any significant > >security risk (or instability risk) to use a pre-release kernel on a > >firewall? > > > I wouldn't think it's a security risk. There is some instability risk; > in my experience the pre kernels are usually stable enough, but there's > no guarantee. If something breaks in a released stable kernel, various > people will be very embarassed, but in a pre-release they'll just look > all innocent and say "but it *was* a test kernel" :-) Fair enough. That sounds a lot like what I would have guessed, but it's nice to have a second opinion. > In any case, 2.4.22rc1 has *just* appeared on the mirrors. (rc=release > candidate). You can interpret that as "it's stable enough now, let's > go", or that a final release is days not weeks away and you might as > well wait, depending on taste... Hehe! A week ago I would never have dreamed I'd be sitting here right now trying to decide my personal 'taste' on compiling a prerelease kernel... I hope you can forgive a little bit of newbie excitement on this. ;-) I think maybe I will take a crack at 2.4.22rc1 (although knowing me the release version will be out when I actually get around to it) Sweet timing either way, though. -- ,-------------------------------------------------------------------------. > -ScruLoose- | What makes a person so poisonous righteous < > Please do not | That they'd think less of anyone who just disagreed? < > reply off-list. | - Moxy Fruvous < `-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Attachment:
pgpv4AMeZtbRF.pgp
Description: PGP signature