Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Module parameters reimplementation 0/4 | Date | Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:45:29 +1100 |
| |
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/
| |