In message <3DD323B4.6080404@pobox.com> you write:
> 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.
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).
IMHO, fundamental elements deserve fundamental names.
> You can see from the totally gratuitous patch to
> include/asm-i386/setup.h which should have been a clue...
>From which I am confident that noone else in i386, at least, uses it 8)
Cheers,
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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