On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 21:09 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Control: fixed -1 361.45.18-1 > > On 2017-02-11 00:06, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > > Problem is that the 340xx driver (didn't check 304xx) does not > > unregister the proc entries if it aborts loading (due to nouveau being > > loaded already). > > The missing nv_unregister_procfs() call was added upstream in the 361 > series. > > The same problem seems to exist in 304xx. I've ported my patch to that > legacy series, too, but I have no way to test it properly. > > Luca, perhaps you could try the following (even if you have no 304xx > requiring hardware, as long as the test machine has a nvidia gpu): > * load nouveau module > * load 304xx module (should fail, since another module has already > grabbed the device) > > I don't know if the relevant code path gets executed if no supported > hardware is available ... if it is I would expect the 304xx module > (without patch) to leave a stale /proc/driver/nvidia (requires reboot to > get rid of it again), while the patched version leaves /proc clean. > It's also possible that the problem is not (easily) reproducible on > 304xx, since the initialization of the procfs entries seems to come much > later.
I can certainly give it a spin, in the next couple of days probably, will report back how it goes. Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
