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

[Baptiste Jonglez]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:56:36AM +0100, John Crispin wrote:
> >> 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?
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> 
> 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.

So, with AutoProbe, there is dependency resolution, similarly to modprobe?
But without using depmod?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/attachments/20170110/c4b7e5a3/attachment.sig>