[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.6.1-mm4

To: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.6.1-mm4
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:42:19 +1100
Cc: jamagallon@xxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040118001708.09291455.akpm@xxxxxxxx>
References: <20040115225948.6b994a48.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <20040118001217.GE3125@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040117215535.0e4674b8.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <20040118081128.GA3153@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040118001708.09291455.akpm@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:17:08 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Presumably, recent gcc's remove the variable altogether and just expand the
> constant inline.  When the central module code checks for the parameter's
> existence in the module's symbol table it errors out.

MODULE_PARM considered harmful.

Unfortunately, there's no easy way of fixing this, since MODULE_PARM()
is often used on variables which aren't declared yet 8(.  (I tried this
in an early patch).

Migrating to module_param() is the Right Thing here IMHO, which actually
takes the damn address,

   there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too
   many doers quoting their contemporaries.  -- Larry McVoy

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>