> > However... I think we can't just grab the module parameter name and
> > use that as a boot parameter name: each module currently has its own
> > "namespace" for parameters, and you're going to get tons of conflicts
> > this way. For instance, there are tons of things like:
>
> Agreed
>
> > for both module parameters and boot parameters, or, have a way of
> > specifying a prefix just for boot parameters, like:
> >
> > __setup(MODULE_PREFIX #var "=", modparm##var##_setup);
>
> I think there are two obvious things here. You got one of them bang on the
> head. The other is to make SETUP_PARM() both and MODULE_PARM() module only
> I think ?
I dont think there is any use in different parameters for module/in kernel
use. I basically think one should enforce a new policy with
- just renaming MODULE_PARAM to SETUP_PARAM (this would of course
confuse people using the other MODULE_ macros...)
- force anyone to use a suitable prefix for the parameters
rather than inventing a new "prefix macro"
The patch was actually done to _not_ require any driver change (of course
I missed the #ifdef'ed out MODULE_PARAM's in most drivers...).
If we want to design a new and improved parameter passing interface
it sould be generic, though this is surely too late for 2.4 as it
would require changes to existing drivers (it really should to be
a good design).
Richard.
-- Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@student.uni-tuebingen.de> PGP: 2E829319 - 2F 83 FC 93 E9 E4 19 E2 93 7A 32 42 45 37 23 57 WWW: http://www.anatom.uni-tuebingen.de/~richi/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/