Re: mouse configuration in 2.6.1

[Rusty Russell]

In message <20040121132337.7f8d3c79.ak@xxxxxxx> you write:
> Unfortunately we have lots of non neat module names and many previous boot
> time arguments note their subsystem which adds even more redundancy.
> 
> And you're suggesting people to move to module_parm now in the stable
> series leads to renaming of module parameters, which breaks previously
> working configurations in often subtle ways. Maybe that's acceptable
> in a unstable development kernel, but I don't think it is in 2.6.

I think we're getting a little confused here.

I'm saying that people should start using module_param instead of
MODULE_PARM in new code, or code being reworked.  This adds a boot
param where there was none before.

I'm explicitly not advocating replacing __setup() for existing code.

> And 2.6.0 -> 2.6.1 silently changing to that without any
> documentation anywhere, silently breaking my mouse.

That's bad.  I would have left the old __setup under #ifdef
CONFIG_OBSOLETE_MODPARM (or something where it can eventually go
away).  And maybe a printk warning about using the old name.

> Sorry Rusty. You are probably the wrong target for the flame, but a
> combination of probably well intended changes including module_parm
> brought a total usability disaster here.

Perhaps I am the wrong target, but I'm glad you brought it up.

I thought that changing __setup to module_param() would have obvious
effects, and authors would make their own call on that.

FYI: __setup and module_param() *CAN* be freely mixed, unlike
MODULE_PARM and module_param().

Hope that clarifies,
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/