[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] automatic module_init ordering
In message <> y
ou write:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > My PARAM code actually maps - to _ in parameter parsing, for exactly
> > this reason. And only a complete idiot would put , in a module name,
> > so I don't care 8)
> Tell that to the author of 53c7,8xx.o ;)

Consider that done.

> > As it happens, the configuration doesn't allow more than one to be
> > built in (they can all be modules though), so it's not actually a
> > problem even after parameter unification.
> Hmmh, I think that'll need some testing. It will be fine if only one of
> the three is "y", the others being "n/undef". However, it looks like it's
> possible to have sth like "m/m/y", which would go wrong with the current
> approach.

That's a bug. That configuration makes no sense (the modules won't
load). Hmmm... more complexity coming up 8(

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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.053 / U:1.048 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site