Re: [PATCH 1/3] param: Adapt MN10300 to the new parameter handling regime

[Rusty Russell]

On Friday 05 December 2008 22:28:16 David Howells wrote:
> I think you're missing:
> 
> 	#define param_mem_keeps_reference 0
> 
> from the stuff you added.

Ah thanks, I didn't actually *cough* test it.

> With that, the core_param stuff does work for mem=...  But I object to
> mem_override not being __initdata.  I also don't think the parameter should
> appear in sysfs - that's just a waste of resources.

If you set the perm to 0, then it won't appear in sys, and hence can be
__initdata.

> It should, perhaps,
> appear in /proc/cmdline, but for some reason it does not.

Hmm, that's more concering.  I'll dig into this in the morning.

> I can live without
> that, though, since its effect appears in /proc/meminfo.
> 
> Also, something else to consider: If CONFIG_MODULES=n and CONFIG_SYSFS=n,
> should the contents of kernel/params.c be discarded along with the __init
> sections?

Yes, I think so.  YA __init variant, but it can be local to kernel/params.c
I think.

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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/