lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: linux-next: rr tree build failure
    On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 01:01:06PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
    > On Saturday 22 November 2008 05:04:03 Greg KH wrote:
    > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:28:51PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
    > > > Greg, here's the complete patch I have now:
    > > >
    > > > Subject: USB: Use core_param.
    > > >
    > > > Found this when I changed args to __module_param_call. We now have
    > > > core_param for exactly this.
    > > >
    > > > This reverts to the 2005 (pre- aafbf24a) behaviour where "nousb" was
    > > > not a module parameter, just a kernel command line parameter. That's
    > > > more sensible anyway.
    > >
    > ...
    > > No, we need to keep that module parameter please, some distros and users
    > > rely on it.
    >
    > Fair enough. Patch below does this as moduleparam.h suggests.
    >
    > It still means that the paremeter appears in
    > /sys/module/kernel/parameters/nousb OR
    > /sys/module/usbcore/parameters/nousb.

    What's the "OR" part? What determines where it goes?

    > FYI, if Pete had discovered this __setup issue today, the correct fix would
    > be:
    > 1) core_param(nousb) for backwards compat.
    > 2) module_param(disable) for modern users who want module/in-built symmetry
    > (ie. boot cmdline "usbcore.disable", and "modprobe usbcore disable")
    >
    >
    > USB: Don't use __module_param_call
    >
    > Found this when I changed args to __module_param_call. We now have
    > core_param for exactly this, but Greg assures me "nousb" is used as a
    > module parameter, using the method suggested in moduleparam.h will
    > have to do.

    Is there a real reason why we need to change this at all?

    > +/* To disable USB, kernel command line is 'nousb' not 'usbcore.nousb' */
    > +#undef MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX
    > +#define MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX
    > +module_param(nousb, bool, 0444);

    That undef seems hacky beyond belief. How would one know to do this?

    thanks,

    greg k-h


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-11-22 07:47    [W:0.022 / U:62.060 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site