Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:59:28 +0200 | From | devzero@web ... | Subject | Re: Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ? |
| |
> >> on x86_64 allmodconfig (2.6.30-rc2), here are the "missing"s that are reported: > >> > >> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs_example_explicit.o > >> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs_example_macros.o > >> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.o > > ... > > We need to bring that list down before we apply the patch. > > Is it worth it? > > I see 424 modules without MODULE_DESCRIPTION (in the list above) and > 3127 .c files that contain "MODULE_DESCRIPTION". > > To me it's a Nice to have but not Required. (i.e., not worth it IMO) > > -- > ~Randy >
i can offer spending an afternoon (or more) on compiling a list of modulenames + missing description for review. if that list is complete and ack`ed, i could create a patch or patch series from that. (maybe the list could be split into logical parts, too)
would that be welcomed ?
roland
____________________________________________________________________ Psssst! Schon vom neuen WEB.DE MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.produkte.web.de/messenger/?did=3123
-- 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/
| |