[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:0.020 / U:0.232 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site