On 2021-11-02 20:51+0900, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Thomas Weißschuh wrote on Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 11:59:32AM +0100:
> > On 2021-11-02 19:51+0900, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> > > Sorry for the late reply
> > > 
> > > Thomas Weißschuh wrote on Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 03:46:11PM +0200:
> > > > Automatically load transport modules based on the trans= parameter
> > > > passed to mount.
> > > > The removes the requirement for the user to know which module to use.
> > > 
> > > This looks good to me, I'll test this briefly on differnet config (=y,
> > > =m) and submit to Linus this week for the next cycle.
> > 
> > Thanks. Could you also fix up the typo in the commit message when applying?
> > ("The removes" -> "This removes")
> 
> Sure, done -- I hadn't even noticed it..
> 
> > > Makes me wonder why trans_fd is included in 9pnet and not in a 9pnet-fd
> > > or 9pnet-tcp module but that'll be for another time...
> > 
> > To prepare for the moment when those transport modules are split into their own
> > module(s), we could already add MODULE_ALIAS_9P() calls to net/9p/trans_fd.c.
> 
> I guess it wouldn't hurt to have 9p-tcp 9p-unix and 9p-fd aliases to the
> 9pnet module, but iirc these transports were more closely tied to the
> rest of 9pnet than the rest so it might take a while to do and I don't
> have much time for this right now...
> I'd rather not prepare for something I'll likely never get onto, so
> let's do this if there is progress.
> 
> Of course if you'd like to have a look that'd be more than welcome :-)

If you are still testing anyways, you could also try the attached patch.
(It requires the autload patch)

It builds fine and I see no reason for it not to work.

Thomas