Re: [PATCH] Module parameters reimplementation 0/4

From: Matthew Wilcox (willy@debian.org)
Date: Thu Nov 14 2002 - 07:39:40 EST


Rusty wrote:
> Jgarzik wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I disagree. It's a param, subsuming both __setup and MODULE_PARAM.
> The fact that it is implemented for modules is not something for the
> driver author to be concerned about (finally).

You're both wrong ;-) `module' != `loadable module'. module_init()
means `this is where you initialise this module', whether it's built-in
or synamically loaded. MODULE_PARAM() should mean `this is a parameter
for this module', whether it's built-in or dynamically loaded.

-- 
Revolutions do not require corporate support.
-
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