> My PARAM code actually maps - to _ in parameter parsing, for exactly
> this reason. And only a complete idiot would put , in a module name,
> so I don't care 8)
Tell that to the author of 53c7,8xx.o ;)
> > - It's possible that objects are linked into more than one module - I
> > suppose this shouldn't be a problem, since these objects hopefully
> > don't have a module_init() nor do they export symbols. Not sure if your
> > patch did handle this.
>
> There's one piece of code I know which is linked in three places, and
> has a module parameter (net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c, linked
> into ipfwadm.o ipchains.o and ip_conntrack.o.
>
> As it happens, the configuration doesn't allow more than one to be
> built in (they can all be modules though), so it's not actually a
> problem even after parameter unification.
Hmmh, I think that'll need some testing. It will be fine if only one of
the three is "y", the others being "n/undef". However, it looks like it's
possible to have sth like "m/m/y", which would go wrong with the current
approach.
--Kai
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/