[lkml]   [2002]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] PARAM 2/4

    On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
    > MODULE_PARAM is misleading and wrong.

    Why is MODULE_PARAM() misleading and wrong? I think it's a lot more
    descriptive, and these things are "modules" whether they are actually
    compiled in or not.

    The MM layer is just "another module". Granted, you can't compile it out
    of the kernel, but it has a specific set of things it does, and is clearly
    not the same thing as the scheduler, which is it's own "module".

    The fact that PARAM was already used as a name should have been a big hint
    that the name is not specific or descriptive enough.

    Also, can we please stop shouting? I'd much rather see

    module_param(debug, int, 0600)


    PARAM(debug, int, 0600)

    (see, for similarities, "module_init()", "module_exit()" etc: you don't
    need to shout to make a point, and "module_xxx()" is already the accepted
    practice for something that works both for compiled-in and modular


    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 13:31    [W:0.020 / U:35.928 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site