Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 Aug 2008 05:48:26 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: Tree for August 14 (sysfs/acpi errors) |
| |
> > They have been module options, not prefixed kernel parameters so far, > and the prefix was just the module name. > So it just strikes back, that acpi uses generic names for the modules, > there would have been no problem if "power" would be called "acpi_power" > and the options would just be "acpi.acpica_version" and > "acpi_power.nocheck". > > But well, there are driver modules just called "option", so acpi is not > that bad. :) > >> I think the generic params code should be fixed to handle this. > > We could try to look up existing directories to use instead of expecting > that we need to create and own them. I guess,
sysfs does this anyways, doesn't it. We would just need to teach it to not BUG() in this case, perhaps with a special entry point. Also a BUG() in general seems a little harsh for this, surely a WARN_ON should be enough.
-Andi -- 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/
| |