[LEDE-DEV] Difference between AutoLoad vs. AutoProbe for kernel modules?

[John Crispin]

On 09/01/2017 22:51, Lucian Cristian wrote:
> On 09.01.2017 15:25, Baptiste Jonglez wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While investigating an issue with module loading order¹, I discovered
>> that
>> some kernel packages use AutoProbe, like this:
>>
>>      AUTOLOAD:=$(call AutoProbe,xt_hashlimit)
>>
>> while some kernel packages use the AutoLoad helper I was used to, with a
>> priority:
>>
>>      AUTOLOAD:=$(call AutoLoad,28,raid0)
>>
>> Judging from this commit² and `include/kernel.mk`, it seems the only
>> difference is that AutoProbe does not include a priority.
>>
>> Is the loading order determined automatically for AutoProbe?  If so,
>> where
>> is the magic, and why is AutoLoad still needed in some cases?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Baptiste
>>
>> ¹ https://github.com/openwrt/packages/issues/3790
>> ²
>> https://git.lede-project.org/?p=source.git;a=commitdiff;h=022cadd64e8a24818d15b22bc28f3460e0b2519c
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lede-dev mailing list
>> Lede-dev at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
> 
> I opened the issue, so using autoload the modules will get a priority
> specified by the number, for wireguard above 90 would issue only one
> warning and using autoprobe the module would be loaded by the order of
> the name ? so setting the xt_hashlimit with a lower number (autoload)
> will start wireguard without complaining
> 
> Regards
> 
> 

autoload is like insmod while autoproe is more liek modprobe. kmodloader
will first load all numbered modules in the given order and then probe
the remaining ones.

	John