rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

baze · 2006-08-11 20:29:01

Is there any difference between
MODULES=(!foo)
and
MOD_BLACKLIST=(foo)
?

I just think that maybe the MOD_BLACKLIST could be ripped out of rc.conf and only use MODULES=() with a ! to disable a module like in DAEMONS=() to clean it up a little bit, if those 2 are the same...

Of course there is a difference, since MOD_BLACKLIST can't load modules, but all the functionality of MOD_BLACKLIST can be done by MODULES, right?

fk · 2006-08-11 20:31:07

In the Modules() you can say which modules you load on Boot

In the Modules_Blacklist() you can say which Modules you don't allow to load e.g with Moduls() or modprobe..

Snowman · 2006-08-11 20:54:43

baze :
Question 1: No.
Question 2.: Yes

AFAIK, MOD_BLACKLIST is kept in rc.conf because some people might like it better than using '!' in the MODULES array. It doesn't hurt to keep it there apart that it clutters a bit.

baze · 2006-08-11 20:55:12

yeah i know that, but since you can blacklist modules in MODULES by putting a ! infront of the name, MODULES can do the same thing MOD_BLACKLIST can do too.

If !foo in MODULES and foo in MOD_BLACKLIST are the same I don't see the reason of keeping MOD_BLACKLIST as this would be the same redundancy as a DAEMONS_BLACKLIST.

tpowa · 2006-08-12 06:47:18

the MOD_BLACKLIST parameter was the first one introduced with hwdetect (for those who can remember that tool .
the !module came later with udev autodetection.
myself i prefer still the MOD_BLACKLIST because the name says it all.
we still have hwdetect in initscripts and those who use this tool to autoload modules, still need MOD_BLACKLIST.

baze · 2006-08-12 09:16:09

ok, so hwdetect doesn't use MODULES=(!foo) and would load the modules anyway.
thanks for clearing this up.

palandir · 2006-08-12 19:12:53

Is MOD_BLACKLIST=(!foo) equivalent to MODULES=(foo), too?

baze · 2006-08-12 19:54:55

i think MOD_BLACKLIST=(!foo) is the same as MOD_BLACKLIST=(foo).
I had this case some days ago when I put modules with ! into MOD_BLACKLIST when I wanted to put them inot MODULES=() and those modules were not loaded at boot but where loaded when I didn't have them in MOD_BLACKLIST.
But I'm not 100% sure about this.

Lone_Wolf · 2006-08-12 23:26:15

palandir wrote:

Is MOD_BLACKLIST=(!foo) equivalent to MODULES=(foo), too?

Somehow i doubt you can use ! in mod_blacklist.

phrakture · 2006-08-12 23:44:10

Lone_Wolf wrote:

palandir wrote:
Is MOD_BLACKLIST=(!foo) equivalent to MODULES=(foo), too?
Somehow i doubt you can use ! in mod_blacklist.

Correct. Arch does not support double negatives!

palandir · 2006-08-13 02:52:02

Hehe. I thought so.
I'm using both arrays anyway, so that there is no negation at all. Looks cleaner IMHO.

jaboua · 2006-08-13 11:50:08

palandir wrote:

Looks cleaner IMHO.

Ditto. If we were to keep only one, I think keeping only MOD_BLACKLIST would be better - but on the other hand, the ! in modules might be good if you want to keep from loading a module only temporary.

baze · 2006-08-13 13:15:56

keeping only MOD_BLACKLIST wouldn't be good since you can't manually load modules then, but only NOT load them.

with only keeping MODULES it would be more like DAEMONS: you can specify the stuff to load AND you can prevent stuff from being loaded by putting a ! infront of the name.

but hwdetect would have to be rewritten to use MODULES and since hwdetect comes from tpwoa and he uses MOD_BLACKLIST, my guess is that this is not going to happen
as seen in this thread there are some people that like the MOD_BLACKLIST and they wouldn't be happy when they'd have to put the stuff into MODULES, so you can't make everyone happy.

I just thought that it doesn't really make sense to have two almost identically things in the rc.conf as it keeps all the other stuff so simple with ONE place to edit most of the system stuff in one file and imho the two ways of preventing a module from being loaded in the else so simple config file doesn't really fit in.
I don't have a problem with both arrays staying since I don't have to look at them all the time but it just feels weird to me.

jaboua · 2006-08-13 13:45:48

It's different with daemons, as daemons are NOT launched by default, while modules not specified in many cases WILL be loaded if hardware detection is on. So I like ! in daemons to temporary disable a daemon, but if there were some kind of an autodetection of daemons (I know it sounds stupid, but just imagine there was ) I would like a DAEMON_BLACKLIST or something as well.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-08-11 20:29:01

rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

#2 2006-08-11 20:31:07

Re: rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

#3 2006-08-11 20:54:43

Re: rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

#4 2006-08-11 20:55:12

Re: rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

#5 2006-08-12 06:47:18

Re: rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

#6 2006-08-12 09:16:09

Re: rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

#7 2006-08-12 19:12:53

Re: rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

#8 2006-08-12 19:54:55

Re: rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

#9 2006-08-12 23:26:15

Re: rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

#10 2006-08-12 23:44:10

Re: rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

#11 2006-08-13 02:52:02

Re: rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

#12 2006-08-13 11:50:08

Re: rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

#13 2006-08-13 13:15:56

Re: rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

#14 2006-08-13 13:45:48

Re: rc.conf: difference between MODULES=() and MOD_BLACKLIST=()?

Board footer