Rusty Russell wrote:
> Finally, if you do not use your own types, PARAM() can be #defined
> into a MODULE_PARM statement for 2.4 kernels (ie. backwards
> compatible). Patch 4/4 also translates old-style MODULE_PARM() into
> PARAMs at load time, for existing modules.
Let's be more friendly to the namespace and call it something less
ambiguous, like MODULE_PARAM, even if that might not be strictly true in
1% of the cases. IMO there are certainly valid local uses of 'PARAM' in
kernel code.
You can see from the totally gratuitous patch to
include/asm-i386/setup.h which should have been a clue...
If this was C++ we could just stick PARAM in the "rusty" namespace and
be done with it, but such as things are...... ;-)
Jeff
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 15 2002 - 22:00:32 EST