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

[Lucian Cristian]

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