Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] PARAM 2/4 | Date | Mon, 18 Nov 2002 05:21:16 +1100 |
| |
In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211170953140.4425-100000@home.transmeta.com> you wri te: > > 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.
I've already conceded this to Jeff Garzik, but...
> The MM layer is just "another module".
In theory. In practice our current build process in mm/ is not compiled as a module. eg: if we put in mm/readahead.c
module_param(debug, int, 0600);
It'd be called "readahead.debug" not "mm.debug". Maybe that's fine, but indicates the subtle difference.
> Also, can we please stop shouting? I'd much rather see > > module_param(debug, int, 0600)
Sure. MODULE_AUTHOR(), MODULE_DESCRIPTION(), MODULE_PARM_DESC() and MODULE_LICENSE() fight the other way. They were previously module only, but that's an implmentation detail: plan is to expose the first three at least through sysfs, or just leave them as stubs for documentation purposes.
Am off to visit Extremadura to see the LinEx project: will update patch and re-send within 24 hrs, 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/
| |