[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150421205857.GG9455@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:58:57 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
casey@...aufler-ca.com, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/6] moduleparam.h: add module_param_config_*() helpers
Hello, Luis.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> A use then would be for instance:
>
> module_param_config_on_off(power_efficient, wq_power_efficient, 0444,
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT_DEFAULT));
>
> this as an alternative would enable use of other static / global variables but
> I'm not sure if these are good use cases to promote, given that all this is to
> help with initial set up, so I believe the restrictions are for the better.
I was thinking more of cases where CONFIG should be inverted or
and/or'd. In general I don't think we conventionally embed
IS_ENABLED() in this sort of macros. It just jumps at me as a weird
restriction. What do others think?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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