@@ -28,6 +28,22 @@ _have_root() {
return 0
}
+_module_file_exists()
+{
+ local ko_underscore=${1//-/_}.ko
+ local ko_hyphen=${1//_/-}.ko
+ local libpath
+ local -i count
+
+ libpath="/lib/modules/$(uname -r)/kernel"
+ count=$(find "$libpath" -name "$ko_underscore" -o \
+ -name "$ko_hyphen" | wc -l)
+ ((count)) && return 0
+ return 1
+}
+
+# Check that the specified module or driver is available, regardless of whether
+# it is built-in or built separately as a module.
_have_driver()
{
local modname="${1//-/_}"
@@ -41,12 +57,14 @@ _have_driver()
return 0
}
+# Check that the specified modules are available as loadable modules and not
+# built-in the kernel.
_have_modules() {
local missing=()
local module
for module in "$@"; do
- if ! modprobe -n -q "$module"; then
+ if ! _module_file_exists "${module}"; then
missing+=("$module")
fi
done
The commit e9645877fbf0 ("common: add a helper if a driver is available") introduced the helper function _have_driver() to check the driver or module is available no matter whether it is a loadable module or built-in module. It was assumed that _have_modules() whould check that specified modules are loadable and not built-in. However, the function _have_modules() returns true even if the specified modules are built-in and not loadable. This causes failures of some test cases on test system with built-in modules such as nbd/004. It also means that _have_modules() and _have_driver() have same functionality. To avoid the unexpected failures, fix _have_modules() to return false when the specified modules are built-in. Check if loadable module file exists by searching the module file path. If the module file does not exist, return false. Also add comments to describe the difference between _have_driver() and _have_modules(). Signed-off-by: Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> --- common/rc | 20 +++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)