In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211170953140.4425-100000@home.transmeta.com> you wri
te:
>
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > MODULE_PARAM is misleading and wrong.
>
> Why is MODULE_PARAM() misleading and wrong? I think it's a lot more
> descriptive, and these things are "modules" whether they are actually
> compiled in or not.
I've already conceded this to Jeff Garzik, but...
> The MM layer is just "another module".
In theory. In practice our current build process in mm/ is not
compiled as a module. eg: if we put in mm/readahead.c
module_param(debug, int, 0600);
It'd be called "readahead.debug" not "mm.debug". Maybe that's fine,
but indicates the subtle difference.
> Also, can we please stop shouting? I'd much rather see
>
> module_param(debug, int, 0600)
Sure. MODULE_AUTHOR(), MODULE_DESCRIPTION(), MODULE_PARM_DESC() and
MODULE_LICENSE() fight the other way. They were previously module
only, but that's an implmentation detail: plan is to expose the first
three at least through sysfs, or just leave them as stubs for
documentation purposes.
Am off to visit Extremadura to see the LinEx project: will update
patch and re-send within 24 hrs,
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 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:19 EST