Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Linux 2.3.18ac5 | Date | Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:36:47 +0100 (BST) | From | Alan Cox <> |
| |
> Note that a fix using MODULE_NAME() _will_ break the current semantics > of some modules: > - we (really) should enforce everyone to have a MODULE_NAME (can we get > a default out of __FILE_NAME__ with some tricky macro??)
I'd rather enforce it. I can go through and put all the module name's in pretty fast if someone puts the base code together and gets it working for a few items
> - some already have a prefix encoded into their arguments (isapnp springs > into my mind) - those will have to be ripped off - and it "breaks" > backward-compatibility, as the prefixes are not always like "isapnp_"
I think we only break compatibility with 2.0 modules > > now, well if its easy, I'll look into it.
Ok
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |