[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48A64235.2030108@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:57:57 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
CC: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
gregkh <greg@...ah.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for August 14 (sysfs/acpi errors)
>> Extract is:
>>
>> XXX adding modparam:'acpi.power_nocheck' 34 (ffffffff806a4cf0)
> ...
>> XXX adding modparam:'acpi.acpica_version' 45 (ffffffff806a4ea8)
>
> Two different "modules" use the same prefix, which does not work with
> the current logic, they need to live next to each other in the sequence
> of options.
Sequence of options being defined by link order?
> This adds a new option:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/sfr/linux-next.git;a=commitdiff;h=1382827e93799ec07790849e361267993cfe549e
> which specifies MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX="acpi." in:
> drivers/acpi/power.c
> In the same way as:
> drivers/acpi/system.c
>
> Seems, two different modules should not declare parameters in different
> locations, and use the same MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX.
That seems bogus to me. Assuming we have some code in a module and then split
it out into two different modules. Or move an option from one file to another.
Would we need to change the option name then?
I think the generic params code should be fixed to handle this.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists