Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Jun 2012 23:41:43 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] init: add comments to keep initcall-names in sync with initcall levels |
| |
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:21:53PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > > What problem does this solve? > > > > kernel/params.c and other builtins are also modules - at least wrt > > how theyre reported by dynamic_debug: > > > > kernel/params.c:121 [params]parse_one =_ "Unknown argument `%s'\012" > > kernel/params.c:117 [params]parse_one =_ "Unknown argument: calling %p\012" > > kernel/params.c:108 [params]parse_one =_ "They are equal! Calling %p\012" > > kernel/params.c:188 [params]parse_args =_ "Parsing ARGS: %s\012" > > > > The advice to avoid those macros does not apply to builtin "modules" > > I don't think I use dynamic_debug, but still, a pair of square brackets > doesn't make that some part of the kernel is considered to be a module, > does it? And more importantly, even if there's a difference between > "module" and "loadable module", which I rather doubt, aren't the people > who are expected to read this comment also expected to understand the > relevance of the preceding > #else /* MODULE */ > > line?
I don't understand one thing: what's wrong with adding another word to the comment so that it explicitly states what "modules" this comment is referring to?
Can you give me at least one technical reason against the comment being as precise as possible, even to the point of tautology. So what if it says "loadable modules"? I don't see anything wrong with that.
So please, let's drop the bikeshedding and get on with our lives :-)
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach GM: Alberto Bozzo Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
| |