netdev
[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,

Rusty.
-- 
   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>