Re: linux-next: Tree for August 14 (sysfs/acpi errors)

[Andi Kleen]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 05:48:26AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > They have been module options, not prefixed kernel parameters so far,
> > > and the prefix was just the module name.
> > > So it just strikes back, that acpi uses generic names for the modules,
> > > there would have been no problem if "power" would be called "acpi_power"
> > > and the options would just be ï"acpi.acpica_version" and
> > > "acpi_power.nocheck".
> > > But well, there are driver modules just called "option", so acpi is not
> > > that bad. :)
> > > > I think the generic params code should be fixed to handle this.
> > > We could try to look up existing directories to use instead of expecting
> > > that we need to create and own them. I guess,
> > sysfs does this anyways, doesn't it. We would just need to teach it
> > to not BUG() in this case, perhaps with a special entry point.
> > Also a BUG() in general seems a little harsh for this, surely a WARN_ON
> > should be enough.
>
> It is a WARN() call, not a BUG().

Ok. Can we remove it? Or add a new entry point that allows to disable it?

I don't think relying on link order like Rusty proposes is a good long term
solution.

-Andi
--
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/