Messages in this thread | | | From | Andrzej Krzysztofowicz <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] net #3 | Date | Wed, 30 May 2001 12:11:37 +0200 (MET DST) |
| |
"David Woodhouse wrote:" > > ankry@green.mif.pg.gda.pl said: > > -#ifdef CONFIG_ISAPNP > > +#if defined(CONFIG_ISAPNP) || (defined(CONFIG_ISAPNP_MODULE) && defined(MODULE)) > > The result here would be a 3c509 module which differs depending on whether > the ISAPNP module happened to be compiled at the same time or not.
I'm just thinking whether the ISA PnP hardware related modules should depend on isa-pnp.o at all (I mean having different behaviour of a the SAME (compiled) module depending on whether isa-pnp.o is available or not)
It is just adding some persistent pointers for isa-pnp functions to the kernel and teaching the modules to use request_module(). Probably also some hacking to keep away from already used ISA PnP hardware during initialization...
Also implementing "nopnp" option should be mandatory, IMHO.
> The ISAPNP-specific parts of the code aren't large. Please consider > including them unconditionally instead.
I see no objection if __init for modules is implemented...
Andrzej -- ======================================================================= Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz ankry@mif.pg.gda.pl phone (48)(58) 347 14 61 Faculty of Applied Phys. & Math., Technical University of Gdansk
- 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/
| |