Re: [PATCH] ramdisk driver: make rd_size non-static

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:02:17 +0000 Byron Bradley <byron.bbradley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In arch/arm/kernel/setup.c:setup_ramdisk(), rd_size is set from the
> boot tags. The replacement ramdisk driver has rd_size as static
> which causes linking to fail when ramdisk is built-in.
> 

but...

> diff --git a/drivers/block/brd.c b/drivers/block/brd.c
> index 5ef1d26..8536480 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/brd.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/brd.c
> @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ static struct block_device_operations brd_fops = {
>   * And now the modules code and kernel interface.
>   */
>  static int rd_nr;
> -static int rd_size = CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_SIZE;
> +int rd_size = CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_SIZE;
>  module_param(rd_nr, int, 0);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(rd_nr, "Maximum number of brd devices");
>  module_param(rd_size, int, 0);

rd_size is a module parameter so it is settable via the
syntax-which-i-can-never-remember.  rd.rd_size=1024 or something like that.

If that's all sane, do we have some back-compat reason to continue to
support the special and duplicative rd_size parameter?


(If we never did crap like this:

arch/arm/kernel/setup.c:        extern int rd_size, rd_image_start, rd_prompt, rd_doload;

then this sort of problem wouldn't occur so often)

MIPS has the same problem.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/