Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:41:32 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: rr tree build failure |
| |
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 01:01:06PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Saturday 22 November 2008 05:04:03 Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:28:51PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > Greg, here's the complete patch I have now: > > > > > > Subject: USB: Use core_param. > > > > > > Found this when I changed args to __module_param_call. We now have > > > core_param for exactly this. > > > > > > This reverts to the 2005 (pre- aafbf24a) behaviour where "nousb" was > > > not a module parameter, just a kernel command line parameter. That's > > > more sensible anyway. > > > ... > > No, we need to keep that module parameter please, some distros and users > > rely on it. > > Fair enough. Patch below does this as moduleparam.h suggests. > > It still means that the paremeter appears in > /sys/module/kernel/parameters/nousb OR > /sys/module/usbcore/parameters/nousb.
What's the "OR" part? What determines where it goes?
> FYI, if Pete had discovered this __setup issue today, the correct fix would > be: > 1) core_param(nousb) for backwards compat. > 2) module_param(disable) for modern users who want module/in-built symmetry > (ie. boot cmdline "usbcore.disable", and "modprobe usbcore disable") > > > USB: Don't use __module_param_call > > Found this when I changed args to __module_param_call. We now have > core_param for exactly this, but Greg assures me "nousb" is used as a > module parameter, using the method suggested in moduleparam.h will > have to do.
Is there a real reason why we need to change this at all?
> +/* To disable USB, kernel command line is 'nousb' not 'usbcore.nousb' */ > +#undef MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX > +#define MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX > +module_param(nousb, bool, 0444);
That undef seems hacky beyond belief. How would one know to do this?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |