From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-129895-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>) id 1RFmVy-0002pW-F4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:41:58 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5199F21C09F; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:41:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com (out5.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA2E21C021 for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:39:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417A120798 for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:39:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:39:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=binarywings.net; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=oHsdlpAhC9wGqVTmnR+czGjo mcc=; b=jSC/rhaPH1JpLoGSzZsccYFucpHVknuIPn18rmz/bxhS0BTHB3caRYvC vXbs8BG4w/5SgCyfapRbl8AHqsetjAQIfP4FuGM4bH514T/+PsDQqmDZTa0K2RPg SLw+S1fF7vx1+mTS15OCW1dbJR3rBwbRp+G1/PbaDGPW8TNrQbw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=oHsd lpAhC9wGqVTmnR+czGjomcc=; b=PM94OPyUjko91nwiIwwPKjxOVvzQ2A7tZjUK dqS++7dJVBvF1OEPqOxdb0QoPTNnQ/1QRpxgkp5sgD9kRQs/CDqi166oiitknL/C h7Le9fRdbmlBSk5ZunX8ShQxdOU7xafA2FUJxGz6Ry/RJ1uFuDthwXnsZ+JO1alG +hqcsfM= X-Sasl-enc: RlxkXol0mMvx4bgYfq6xhlO7rumaeFsLt728rF8xB0g1 1318855190 Received: from [192.168.5.18] (serv.binarywings.net [83.169.5.6]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7FC9406310 for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:39:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E9C220C.7090101@binarywings.net> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:39:40 +0200 From: Florian Philipp <lists@binarywings.net> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110925 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.12 Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Another Install Issue References: <4E9A119D.1000501@gmail.com> <4E9AAC83.3050305@binarywings.net> <201110161118.45443.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <4E9B5C37.7060501@binarywings.net> <20111017091500.5e600736@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> <CAGOe-ewqTt+mEBg3WrRJsd9v+6aaMv-5u6AuKNk=QYxenLgaZg@mail.gmail.com> <20111017123015.6feec5cc@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20111017123015.6feec5cc@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig03FC0D83575D6A7F61135A4A" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 6e6dac409f597b5e4f27846e1b5eb3b5 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig03FC0D83575D6A7F61135A4A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 17.10.2011 13:30, schrieb Neil Bothwick: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:19:16 +0100, Mick wrote: >=20 >>> This seems more elegant than a separate init script, but do you want >>> it to return 0 unconditionally? If the modules fail to load, surely >>> you want the attempt to bring the interface up to abort? =20 >> >> In my head I find it less elegant to be honest. Is it up to a network= >> configuration script to load the *kernel* module for the hardware? >=20 > Is it up to an init script to do that either? I'd say no. either way > seems wrong, but having the network config check that the interface is > available before trying to bring it up seems somewhat less wrong. >=20 >=20 Yes, I intended it to return 0 unconditionally. My reasoning was that a) trying anyway doesn't hurt. b) when you change your kernel config or hardware and don't need that workaround anymore, it is better to have a working network and a warning rather than no network and an error. c) for something that is potentially important for the user to get access to the system, you should try as hard as possible to get it running before giving up. Of course, this is more important for a headless server than a desktop but scripts tend to get copied around. Concerning what is more elegant: no clue. I guess you could even use udev for this stuff but I don't know the syntax. One thing that I worry more about is that there might be a race condition. Maybe after loading the module, some time is necessary for the interface to appear. I ran into an issue like that while playing around with the zram module. In such a case, the separate init script has a higher chance to succeed than a bash function called some milliseconds before the interface initialization. Regards, Florian Philipp --------------enig03FC0D83575D6A7F61135A4A Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6cIhEACgkQqs4uOUlOuU+AKACdEAD5ys7ZCSuJieHkISGW+/Zh k3gAn0PUPts7pym+GxR1i+jet0ptua7q =wbVg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig03FC0D83575D6A7F61135A4A--