[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200812052325.22974.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:25:22 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] param: Adapt MN10300 to the new parameter handling regime
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@...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