[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Am I paranoid or is everyone out to break my kernel builds (Breakage in drivers/pcmcia)
On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 19:50, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 02:31:35AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Russell King <> wrote:
> > > Take special note of the '&' before 'num' in the above initialiser, and
> > > check the structure:
> >
> > Something's out of whack with your tree. You should have:
> Ok, but what's the point of the change? If it's to indicate that
> we're returning a value, shouldn't the other module_param* macros
> also be fixed in the same way, or do we just like special cases?

Only module_param_array() sets a number: the number of elements in the
array. By making that arg a pointer, we can put "NULL" there, since it
turned out many people didn't care how many elements there were (and
were overloading the same variable for all their arrays, which breaks
printing in sysfs).

Hope that helps,
Anyone who quotes me in their signature is an idiot -- Rusty Russell

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.035 / U:2.688 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site