Re: [PATCH] final support for MODULE_PARAM as kernel commandline

Keith Owens (kaos@ocs.com.au)
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 22:01:31 -0700

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 13:35:26 +0100 (BST),
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>Richard Guenther wrote
>> I dont think there is any use in different parameters for module/in kernel
>> use. I basically think one should enforce a new policy with
>> - just renaming MODULE_PARAM to SETUP_PARAM (this would of course
>> confuse people using the other MODULE_ macros...)
>> - force anyone to use a suitable prefix for the parameters
>> rather than inventing a new "prefix macro"
>
>That breaks too many tools and admin setups. Its out of the question.
>Allowing the short form (ie insmod 3c501 io=0x340 as well as
>insmod 3c501 3c501.io=0x340) solves a lot

I recommend that modules built into kernel use modname.parmname. Use
the same syntax when loaded as a separate module but change insmod so

insmod modname parm1=val1 parm2=val2

is tried "as is" first then retried as

insmod modname modname.parm1=val1 modname.parm2=val2

if the parameter names do not exist in the module. It would require
2.3.18-ac users to upgrade to a new modutils but that is nothing new.
Parameter files would be unchanged and both code and parm files would
be backwards compatible.

Shall I upgrade insmod to automatically insert a modname prefix on
parameters if the raw parameter name does not exist?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/