From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268171AbTGTUJ5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:09:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268201AbTGTUJ5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:09:57 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]:31406 "EHLO main.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268171AbTGTUJy (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:09:54 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: mru@users.sourceforge.net (=?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=) Subject: Re: 2.6-test1 startup messages? Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:22:46 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20030720140035.GC20163@rdlg.net> <3F1AD2AA.9010603@cornell.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:jLs01i1gacq9c9ZJKyNjuZDFqXM= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ivan Gyurdiev writes: >> I just converted a box to 2.6-test1. I've installed the >> module-init-tools >> per another thread on the list. Spread throughout the startup messages >> of the system (Debian Unstable) are messages that read: >> FATAL: Module /dev/tts not found >> FATAL: Module /dev/tts not found >> FATAL: Module /dev/ttsS?? not found >> FATAL: Module /dev/ttsS?? not found >> looking at /dev/tty* I have /dev/tty, /dev/tty0-tty63. There is no >> /dev/ttyS0 (serial console) or tts*. >> > > Are you using devfs? > I get the same messages with devfs. > Looking up a /dev file that does not presently exist > or have a corresponding module results in the above warnings. > At boot time, on a redhat distro pam_console_apply tries to lookup > the devices specified in /etc/security/console.perms, which causes a > zillion warnings for me. The question is - are those warnings to > correct way to handle a devfs lookup of a nonexisting device. I don't > remember getting warnings under 2.4. Maybe I did, and just didn't > notice (but I doubt it). They're certainly annoying and I don't like > them. It's the new modprobe that complains louder than the old one. I guess it's trivial to remove the printout from the source code. -- Måns Rullgård mru@users.sf.net