Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ramdisk driver: make rd_size non-static | From | Matt Mackall <> | Date | Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:39:23 -0600 |
| |
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 18:28 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:02:17 +0000 Byron Bradley <byron.bbradley@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In arch/arm/kernel/setup.c:setup_ramdisk(), rd_size is set from the > > boot tags. The replacement ramdisk driver has rd_size as static > > which causes linking to fail when ramdisk is built-in. > > > > but... > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/brd.c b/drivers/block/brd.c > > index 5ef1d26..8536480 100644 > > --- a/drivers/block/brd.c > > +++ b/drivers/block/brd.c > > @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ static struct block_device_operations brd_fops = { > > * And now the modules code and kernel interface. > > */ > > static int rd_nr; > > -static int rd_size = CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_SIZE; > > +int rd_size = CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_SIZE; > > module_param(rd_nr, int, 0); > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(rd_nr, "Maximum number of brd devices"); > > module_param(rd_size, int, 0); > > rd_size is a module parameter so it is settable via the > syntax-which-i-can-never-remember. rd.rd_size=1024 or something like that. > > If that's all sane, do we have some back-compat reason to continue to > support the special and duplicative rd_size parameter?
Only insofar as we're still supporting ramdisks in the first place.
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
| |