Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 Aug 2008 04:30:34 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: Tree for August 14 (sysfs/acpi errors) |
| |
Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 05:48:26AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: >>> 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. > > It is a WARN() call, not a BUG().
Ok. Can we remove it? Or add a new entry point that allows to disable it?
I don't think relying on link order like Rusty proposes is a good long term solution.
-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/
| |