lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-16 00:01    [W:0.037 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site