lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Module parameters reimplementation 0/4
Date
In message <3DD323B4.6080404@pobox.com> you write:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > Finally, if you do not use your own types, PARAM() can be #defined
> > into a MODULE_PARM statement for 2.4 kernels (ie. backwards
> > compatible). Patch 4/4 also translates old-style MODULE_PARM() into
> > PARAMs at load time, for existing modules.
>
> Let's be more friendly to the namespace and call it something less
> ambiguous, like MODULE_PARAM, even if that might not be strictly true in
> 1% of the cases. IMO there are certainly valid local uses of 'PARAM' in
> kernel code.

I disagree. It's a param, subsuming both __setup and MODULE_PARAM.
The fact that it is implemented for modules is not something for the
driver author to be concerned about (finally).

IMHO, fundamental elements deserve fundamental names.

> You can see from the totally gratuitous patch to
> include/asm-i386/setup.h which should have been a clue...

From which I am confident that noone else in i386, at least, uses it 8)

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:31    [W:1.330 / U:0.680 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site