Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Module parameters reimplementation 0/4 | Date | Fri, 15 Nov 2002 04:33:37 +1100 |
| |
In message <20021114123940.U30392@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> you write: > Rusty wrote: > > Jgarzik wrote: > > > 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). > > You're both wrong ;-) `module' != `loadable module'.
Now we're descending into sophistry. But PARAM() is useful in (say) init/main.c, as well, and it's a stretch to call it a module...
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/
| |