lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: module parameters versus kernel command line
Date
On Friday 04 April 2008 02:14:44 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:04:25 -0400 Tom Horsley wrote:
> > I know that part, I'm just wondering if it would be nice to have
> > even dynamically loaded modules notice the kernel option
> > so that the "usbcore" module would see the "blinkenlights=1"
> > parameter from the kernel boot options when dynamically loaded?
> >
> > That way, you wouldn't have to stop and figure out if a module
> > was static or dynamic to decide if you need to edit the grub boot
> > line or the modprobe.conf file.
>
> OK, that makes some sense to me.
>
> Rusty added to cc for his objective viewpoint.

I agree with Randy; it has some appeal, but it's not a killer feature.

We already do the reverse: sysfs exposed parameters are the same for modules
and builtins. If they're modifiable (most aren't), you don't have to care
whether it's a module or not.

But there are also minor downsides. The first is that we currently warn about
unused parameters (at least those containing '.'). We'd have to come up with
something cleverer if we want to warn only about parameters which cannot be
used by modules (ie. do it in userspace).

The second is that users might be surprised when they take
the 'usbcore.blinkenlights' line out of their modprobe config file and it
still applies. Most users use everything-is-a-module distributions.

Finally, it would be logical to take all the module parameters and autogen
them into the kernel commandline, but it will soon hit cmdline limits (hmm,
actually on my Ubuntu Hardy system here I think I'd be OK).

Cheers,
Rusty.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-04 01:13    [W:0.457 / U:0.276 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site