So, after not looking at it for literally years, I want to have apache load
some more modules. I go to edit modules.conf and the top says:
# Autogenerated file - do not edit!
# This file is maintained by the apache package.
# To update it, run the command:
#/usr/sbin/modules-config apache
Can someone please explain the correct usage of /etc/modules.conf (in
sarge)? In my modules.conf file it says:
# Please do not edit this file directly. If you want to change or add
# anything please take a look at the files in /etc/modutils and read
# the manpage for update-modules.
The
Hello,
I'm running debian unstable and I can't seem to make pre- and post-install
directives in modules.conf work. For example, I have the following lines that
worked in my fedora box in /etc/modutils/lirc (and modules.conf) to make serial
ir-dongle work with lirc:
alias cha
ng X11 display :0.0
dga: version 2.0
mode: 1024x768, depth=24, bpp=32, bpl=4096, base=0xd800
can't open /dev/video0: No such device
At this point i am wondering if this has something to do with /etc/modules.conf file.
I mean it has no entries in there as of now dealing with 'vide
ut how to make
> aliases like in /etc/modules.conf for non modules (i.e. compiled
> in the kernel).
>
> thank you,
>
> --
> Abdul Latip - Junior Staff - http://people.WebIndonesia.com/dullatip/ -
> - Dear IETF: I want back my X.400 under X.25 or CLNP spam free mailer! -
&g
Abdul Latip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to know where to get information about how to make
> aliases like in /etc/modules.conf for non modules (i.e. compiled
> in the kernel).
Mostly you don't; the only way to configure drivers built into the
kernel is by passi
Hi,
I would like to know where to get information about how to make
aliases like in /etc/modules.conf for non modules (i.e. compiled
in the kernel).
thank you,
--
Abdul Latip - Junior Staff - http://people.WebIndonesia.com/dullatip/ -
- Dear IETF: I want back my X.400 under X.25 or CLNP spam
Alphonse Ogulla wrote:
> I get the following two warning messages on startup.
> 1) warning: cannot open /etc/mtab. no such file or directory
> and
> 2) warning: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than
> /lib/modules/2.4.18-686/modules.dep...
I have not tracked down either of thos
I get the following two warning messages on startup.
1) warning: cannot open /etc/mtab. no such file or directory
and
2) warning: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than
/lib/modules/2.4.18-686/modules.dep...
AFAIC, /etc/mtab is created on startup. Then why the warning in first place?
In the
"J" == J F Gratton writes:
J> I might be using workarounds or not using my system effeciently
J> but I've never had to tamper with /etc/modules.conf.
J> All I did so far to get modules to load and to work was to put
J> them into /etc/modules.
; 'update-modules' as root, which reads this, as well as some files in
> > /etc/modutils/, to *create* /etc/modules.conf. (This script is run as
> > part of /etc/init.d/modutils at boot time, in case you're wondering why
> > you haven't run it yourself and things s
;update-modules' as root, which reads this, as well as
> > some files in /etc/modutils/, to *create* /etc/modules.conf. (This
> > script is run as part of /etc/init.d/modutils at boot time, in case
> > you're wondering why you haven't run it yourself and things still
&
karounds or not using my system effeciently but
> >>I've never had to tamper with /etc/modules.conf.
> >>
> >>All I did so far to get modules to load and to work was to put them into
> >>/etc/modules.
> >>
> >>For instance: on a 2.
Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
-- J.F.Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Thursday, 20 February 2003, 09:53 PM -0500):
I might be using workarounds or not using my system effeciently but
I've never had to tamper with /etc/modules.conf.
All I did so far to get modules to
/etc/modutils/, to *create* /etc/modules.conf. (This script is run as
> part of /etc/init.d/modutils at boot time, in case you're wondering why
> you haven't run it yourself and things still worked.)
>
> There's a lot more to it, and this answer is definitely a bit
>
J.F.Gratton wrote:
Good evening,
I might have missed that one, concerning /etc/modules, /etc/modules.conf
and modutils..
What does what in there ?
I might be using workarounds or not using my system effeciently but
I've never had to tamper with /etc/modules.conf.
All I did so far t
-- J.F.Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Thursday, 20 February 2003, 09:53 PM -0500):
> I might be using workarounds or not using my system effeciently but
> I've never had to tamper with /etc/modules.conf.
>
> All I did so far to get modules to load and to wo
Good evening,
I might have missed that one, concerning /etc/modules, /etc/modules.conf
and modutils..
What does what in there ?
I might be using workarounds or not using my system effeciently but
I've never had to tamper with /etc/modules.conf.
All I did so far to get modules to loa
"Ross" == Ross Boylan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ross> I read the man pages. They didn't answer the questions I
Ross> had; the one for modules in particular is quite terse.
Yes, they are very terse and things are fairly confusing. When I said
"read the manuals for details" I meant j
I read the man pages. They didn't answer the questions I had; the one
for modules in particular is quite terse.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Ross" == Ross Boylan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ross> What is the relation of /etc/modules to /etc/modules.conf?
Ross> Which runs first?
/etc/modules.conf controls the behavior of modprobe.
/etc/modules is a list of modules loaded at system boot.
What is the relation of /etc/modules to /etc/modules.conf?
Which runs first?
Do options in modules.conf get picked up by the modules specified in
/etc/modules?
Do they get picked up even if the line in /etc/modules specifies some
options?
Do modules listed in /etc/modules get loaded by modprobe
Ian Patrick Thomas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:38:30PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > Ian Patrick Thomas wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been getting this message on bootup
> > >
> > > Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:38:30PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
> Ian Patrick Thomas wrote:
> >
> > I have been getting this message on bootup
> >
> > Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than /lib/modules/`uname
> > -r`/modules.dep
> >
> > W
Ian Patrick Thomas wrote:
>
> I have been getting this message on bootup
>
> Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than /lib/modules/`uname
> -r`/modules.dep
>
> When I check, both have the same creation time. After searching on
> geocrawler I found a post
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 10:57:21PM -0500, Ian Patrick Thomas wrote:
| I have been getting this message on bootup
|
| Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than /lib/modules/`uname
-r`/modules.dep
| Any other suggestions or is this nothing to worry about?
Run 'update-modules' as root.
-D
I have been getting this message on bootup
Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than /lib/modules/`uname -r`/modules.dep
When I check, both have the same creation time. After searching on geocrawler
I found a post
where someone put the all the subdirectories of /lib/modules/`uname -r
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> Hullo,
>
> basically, all i want to do is have my box load the module for
> the second NC and assign it /dev/eth1.
>
> I've read the manpages for modules.conf, update-modules,
> read the files themselves as well as anything pre
Hullo,
basically, all i want to do is have my box load the module for
the second NC and assign it /dev/eth1.
I've read the manpages for modules.conf, update-modules,
read the files themselves as well as anything present in
/etc/modutils.
I still have no clue what file I need to chan
Dear GURUS,
Recently, I have been getting warning messages on bootup that goes
something like this:
"NOTE: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than
/lib/modules/2.2.19/modules.dep"
I have tried running "depmod -a" and "update-modules" without any effect
on these mess
> say.
There is no preferred method afaik. If you do not have kmod, then you
will need /etc/modules, because /etc/modules.conf is simply not used.
Since I use kmod, I create a new file, named /etc/modutils/local, and put
my machine's settings in there. Then run update-modules to regene
hey all,
just a general question... i usually build my kernels with modules for
everything, just like the debian kernel. it's still one kernel per
machine, and the few modules i compile are still always loaded, so i
don't know why i do so, but i guess it doesn't really matter.
however, i have a qu
will dissapear in a few hours.
Duncan Findlay
- Original Message -
From: "Joost Kooij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Balbir Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than modules.dep ???
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 08:43:56PM -0500, Balbir Thomas wrote:
> hi,
> I keep getting the following error message at boot time:
>
> modprobe: Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than
> /lib/modules/2.4.5/modules.dep
>
> On other occasions it is insmod that issues the mes
gt; >
> > > modprobe: Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than
> > > /lib/modules/2.4.5/modules.dep
> > >
> > > On other occasions it is insmod that issues the message. I have had this
> > > problem since kernel 2.2.17. I am presently running kernel 2
gt; >
> > > modprobe: Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than
> > > /lib/modules/2.4.5/modules.dep
> > >
> > > On other occasions it is insmod that issues the message. I have had this
> > > problem since kernel 2.2.17. I am presently running kernel 2
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 09:04:55PM -0500, ktb wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 08:43:56PM -0500, Balbir Thomas wrote:
> > hi,
> > I keep getting the following error message at boot time:
> >
> > modprobe: Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than
> > /lib/modu
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 08:43:56PM -0500, Balbir Thomas wrote:
> hi,
> I keep getting the following error message at boot time:
>
> modprobe: Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than
> /lib/modules/2.4.5/modules.dep
>
> On other occasions it is insmod that issues the mes
hi,
I keep getting the following error message at boot time:
modprobe: Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than
/lib/modules/2.4.5/modules.dep
On other occasions it is insmod that issues the message. I have had this
problem since kernel 2.2.17. I am presently running kernel 2.4.5 compiled
elated messages. Must be some nuance I'm missing here...
>
> /etc/modutils/sb looks as follows...
> options sb io=0x220 irq=5 dma=1
> alias sound sb
>
>
> /etc/modules.conf is:
> ### This file is automatically generated by update-modules
> #
> # Please do not e
p. Yes, I did
Chris> run update-modules after each change... but after reboot no
Chris> sound drivers are present according to lsmod, and dmesg shows
Chris> no sound-related messages. Must be some nuance I'm missing
Chris> here...
The file modules.conf describes the dependencies bet
and dmesg
shows no sound-related messages. Must be some nuance I'm missing here...
/etc/modutils/sb looks as follows...
options sb io=0x220 irq=5 dma=1
alias sound sb
/etc/modules.conf is:
### This file is automatically generated by update-modules
#
# Please do not edit this file directly.
command:
$SIMULATE modprobe $module -C $Target/etc/modules.conf =>
modprobe loop -C /etc/modules.conf
loop.o is present under /lib/modules/2.4.4, which leads me to suspect
that modules.conf should explain why loop.o cannot be found, but
snd-ac97-codec can, which also resides under /lib/mod
Hi,
I'm running Debian unstable with a custom kernel and have a couple of
questions I hope someone can help with or point me at the right docs.
After configuring and installing my new kernel, at boot at get several
notes that /etc/modules.conf is more recent than /lib/modules/2.2.
*/module
I'm curious to know how one defines new aliases in '/etc/modutils/'. In
the past when the kernel fails to load a module that is requested, a
message will appear in the system log. I am not receiving any such
notification.
I assume that the aliases the kernel looks for are kept somewhere by
the ke
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, Oct 25, 2000
at 06:49:53PM -0500
Erik,
I found the thread on debian-user where you and others were discussing the
problem with timestamps on /etc/modules.conf and /lib/modules/`uname
-r`/modules.dep:
http://lists.debi
.too in /etc/modutils
and run update-modules to regenerate /etc/modules.conf.
The next time i rebooted modprobe said : '/etc/modules.conf
is more recent than /lib/modules/2.2.18pre21/modules.dep
modprobe: can't locate module 8139.too'.
Now modprobe -l -t net shows t
(/etc/init.d/modutils) runs
> > depmod -a when the machine boots, but it seems that the
> > time stamp that results from the new modules.dep file
> > being made is incorrect. It appears that the date is
> > ok but the time is not, making it appear the modules.dep
> > f
(/etc/init.d/modutils) runs
> > depmod -a when the machine boots, but it seems that the
> > time stamp that results from the new modules.dep file
> > being made is incorrect. It appears that the date is
> > ok but the time is not, making it appear the modules.dep
> > file
e stamp that results from the new modules.dep file
> being made is incorrect. It appears that the date is
> ok but the time is not, making it appear the modules.dep
> file may be older than modules.conf. If I run depmod -a
> after the machine is up and running, the time/date stamp on
being made is incorrect. It appears that the date is
ok but the time is not, making it appear the modules.dep
file may be older than modules.conf. If I run depmod -a
after the machine is up and running, the time/date stamp on
the modules.dep file is correct. Maybe the system time that
is used
>
>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 12:17:25AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
>>
>> > Oct 25 00:08:06 jojda insmod: Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent
>> > than /lib/m
>> > odules/2.2.17/modules.dep
>> >
>> > is somewhat troubling me, I
Philipp Schulte wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 12:17:25AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
>
> > Oct 25 00:08:06 jojda insmod: Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent
> > than /lib/m
> > odules/2.2.17/modules.dep
> >
> > is somewhat troubling me, I ha
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 12:17:25AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> Oct 25 00:08:06 jojda insmod: Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent
> than /lib/m
> odules/2.2.17/modules.dep
>
> is somewhat troubling me, I have fairly plain debian unstable install,
> why do I get the message
the message in subject:
Oct 25 00:08:06 jojda insmod: Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent
than /lib/m
odules/2.2.17/modules.dep
is somewhat troubling me, I have fairly plain debian unstable install,
why do I get the message?
I tried to figure out why is the /etc/modules.conf newer than
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
>ok, so modules.conf is created by a call to update-modules.
>suppose i compile a new kernel. where along the process is conf.modules
>updated? all i ever see 'make modules' do is compile, and 'make
>mo
ok, so modules.conf is created by a call to update-modules.
suppose i compile a new kernel. where along the process is conf.modules
updated? all i ever see 'make modules' do is compile, and 'make
modules_install' simply moves stuff around. surely, this file has to
"Matthias Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I´m so sorry! I exchanged /etc/modules.conf with /etc/modules! Forget my
> last mail. It has nothing to do with your questions! To /etc/modules.conf i
> only can write, that it includes some aliases for work with the system. I
Hello again dear Peter!
I´m so sorry! I exchanged /etc/modules.conf with /etc/modules! Forget my
last mail. It has nothing to do with your questions! To /etc/modules.conf i
only can write, that it includes some aliases for work with the system. I
mean that this aliases will be needed for kernel
%% Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
es> Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
>> 2. which applications use this configuration file? and when?
>> only at boot time?
Just to be perfectly clear, modules.conf is used to configure loadable
_kernel_ modules only. It is not use
Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
>
> i've never got this straight --
>
> 1. what is modules.conf? what is it used for?
various information about modules, for example options (which irq to
use etc.), you can also turn off the modules (for example if kernels
looks for modules you do
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Peter Jay Salzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>i've never got this straight --
>1. what is modules.conf? what is it used for?
The main configuration file for kernel modules. Defines aliases
and options used when loading modules.
>2. which a
Hi Peter!
/etc/modules.conf includes all the names of modules, they are installed into
your kernel. I´m not shure whether modconf has generated this file. But
modconf will write into it by selecting a module to put it into the kernel.
The kernel reads this file to see which modules shall be load
i've never got this straight --
1. what is modules.conf? what is it used for?
2. which applications use this configuration file? and when?
only at boot time?
3. how is it generated?
always wanted to know this... thanks!
pete
Brien writes:
MO> I've tried several different variations on getting my sound card
MO> driver to correctly initialize thru /etc/modules.conf. I still have
MO> not figured out a good way to do so.
MO>
MO> However, I can manually install the sound driver using the following:
Hola~
I've tried several different variations on getting my sound card driver
to correctly initialize thru /etc/modules.conf. I still have not figured
out a good way to do so.
However, I can manually install the sound driver using the following:
modprobe sound
insmod ad1848
i
"David Z. Maze" wrote:
>
> Kent West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> KW> Is there a plain-english ("for dummies") page somewhere that
> KW> explains how modules work (modutils vs /etc/modules vs kmod vs
> KW> kerneld vs conf.modules vs modules.conf
Quoting Kent West ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> However, I don't have an "/etc/conf.modules" file on my system. I do
> have an "/etc/conf.modules.old" and an "/etc/modules.conf". So my basic
> question still stands. Which file is to be used? The documentatio
Kent West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
KW> Is there a plain-english ("for dummies") page somewhere that
KW> explains how modules work (modutils vs /etc/modules vs kmod vs
KW> kerneld vs conf.modules vs modules.conf vs /etc/modutils/ vs auto
KW> vs specific items in /
>
> Can I delete my "/etc/conf.modules.old" file without worry?
>
yep, i have not had one for some time. There is no standard as of yet. When
the LSB (Linux Standards Base) gets ratified we may have to revisit this issue.
If documentation confuses you, please mail the maintainer and ask for t
vs
> > /etc/modules vs kmod vs kerneld vs conf.modules vs modules.conf vs
> > /etc/modutils/ vs auto vs specific items in /etc/modules vs compile-in
> > vs Godzilla vs Buck Rogers in the 23rd Century)?
> >
>
> update-modules is the key component. Documentation for Debian and
> Can anyone verify that this is the case? Add any info? Which should I
> use on my system? Do I have a choice? Is there a plain-english ("for
> dummies") page somewhere that explains how modules work (modutils vs
> /etc/modules vs kmod vs kerneld vs conf.modules vs modules.c
Okay, I'm been looking off-and-on for weeks, and in earnest for the past
hour, and maybe I'm just blind and/or stupid, but I can not find an
explanation of the difference between conf.modules and modules.conf.
I think maybe that conf.modules is the official name (according to some
Linux
Quoting Oreste Salerno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> 2.2.15 code is the same as the 2.2.10, as what regards this part. Adding
> these extra printk showed me that the string ignore is composed only by the
> first word, even if actually there are more than one. i.e if i put:
>
> options ignore='aa hdb h
On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 07:11:00PM +0100, David Wright wrote:
> then my reaction would be to put an
> extra printk or two into the kernel source and see what it's actually
> doing.
>
> 2.2.10 has:
>
> MOD_INC_USE_COUNT;
> printk("ide-cd: will ignore %s\n", ignore); <-
>
y from
> > > the command line:
> > >
> > > modprobe ide-cd ignore='hdb hdc'
> >
> > Perhaps it's just that the kernel source is not Debianised.
> >
> What do you mean?
Only that the filename chosen for conf.modules or modules.conf
is n
On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 02:45:35PM +0100, David Wright wrote:
>
> Take a look at /etc/conf.modules (not modules.conf) and then
Note that it actually is modules.conf if you're using modutils since
2.3.4 (2.3.5-1 was the first deb with this changes, if i read the
changelogs correct
de-cd ignore='hdb hdc'
>
> Perhaps it's just that the kernel source is not Debianised.
>
What do you mean?
> Take a look at /etc/conf.modules (not modules.conf) and then
> follow the comments,
There's no /etc/conf.modules in Debian 2.2, at least not in my /etc
d
de-cd.c it's written that I should put in modules.conf:
>
> options ide-cd ignore='hdb hdc'
>
> and that's what I did. The problem is that ide-cd only ignores hdb, but
> still recognizes hdc. This thing does not happen if I write, directly from
> the command li
Hi people,
I have a quite strange problem with the Debian potato: I want my cdrom
reader and writer (hdb and hdc) to be ignored by the ide-cd module driver,
in order to activate for them the ide-scsi module and use as normal SCSI
devices. In ide-cd.c it's written that I should put in modules
Hello, All!
I have a strange problem with post-install directive in
/etc/modules.conf
In my modules.conf I have the following lines:
alias net-pf-4 ipx
post-install ipx /etc/init.d/ipx start
but it doesn't work as expected, e.g. ipx.o module gets loaded, but ipx
stays unconfigured.
The
ot scripts don't set the
my system to local time (pst) before depmod is run.
Should this be considered a bug and reported?? As a temp solution
I set the time stamp for modules.conf to a earlier date.
Roy Pluschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm not on the debian list at the moment, but have just been searching
the archives. I noticed your messages which looked like they would solve
my (exact same) problem [potato + 2.2.13 + all updates];
--
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>/lib/modules/2.2.10/misc/sound.o: invalid paramete
On 22-Oct-99 Martin Fluch wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Pollywog wrote:
>
>> > On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 01:25:50AM -0400, Jean Pierre LeJacq wrote:
>> >> This is a know bug in the modutils package. See the bugs page on
>> >> this.
>> >
>> > Where is this bugs page?
>>
>> I could not find it ei
> > Solution is to add the file /etc/modutils/paths and add
> > entries for each one of subdirectories under /lib/modules/2.2.12/.
>
> Are there any more specific docs to read about setting up this file?
See the man page modules.conf(5). The only change for Debian is
that this f
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Solution is to add the file /etc/modutils/paths and add
> > entries for each one of subdirectories under /lib/modules/2.2.12/.
>
> Are there any more specific docs to read about setting up this file?
man modules.conf
Martin
-
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Pollywog wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 01:25:50AM -0400, Jean Pierre LeJacq wrote:
> >> This is a know bug in the modutils package. See the bugs page on
> >> this.
> >
> > Where is this bugs page?
>
> I could not find it either, though I did find one that seemed to be
On 22-Oct-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the prompt reply.
> I have a few more questions if you are willing to answer them.
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 01:25:50AM -0400, Jean Pierre LeJacq wrote:
>> This is a know bug in the modutils package. See the bugs page on
>> this.
>
Hi,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
I have a few more questions if you are willing to answer them.
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 01:25:50AM -0400, Jean Pierre LeJacq wrote:
> This is a know bug in the modutils package. See the bugs page on
> this.
Where is this bugs page?
> Solution is to add the file
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have only recently upgraded my kernel to 2.2.12.
> The error below is returned after trying to install a new module:
>
> Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than /lib/modules/2.2.12/modules.dep
> opl3sa: dma, irq and io mu
Hi,
I have only recently upgraded my kernel to 2.2.12.
The error below is returned after trying to install a new module:
Note: /etc/modules.conf is more recent than /lib/modules/2.2.12/modules.dep
opl3sa: dma, irq and io must be set.
/lib/modules/2.2.12/misc/opl3sa.o: init_module: Device or
--Original Message--
From: Lee Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: October 20, 1999 12:02:00 AM GMT
Subject: Re: New modules.conf + sound...
/*
it seems the new version of modutils now tries to pass io=0x220 directly to
sound.o (which it doesn't directly support)
Try com
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>/lib/modules/2.2.10/misc/sound.o: invalid parameter parm_io
>After a quick search, I have not yet found where sound.o is handed a parm_io
>parameter (I could just be totally misinterpreting the error).
the parm_io refers to the io=0x220 in your modules
Hi. Well, after running another system upgrade a couplea days ago (on
Potato, of course), I seem to have broken my sound configuration again. I
am not sure if it was this upgrade or a previous one that shifted module
configuration from conf.modules to modules.conf (or whatever they're c
94 matches
Mail list logo
