Re: [PATCH] automatic module_init ordering

Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Thu, 01 Aug 2002 09:28:19 +1000

In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207311201000.19799-100000@chaos.physics.uiowa.edu> y
ou write:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > 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 ;)

Consider that done.

> > 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.

That's a bug. That configuration makes no sense (the modules won't
load). Hmmm... more Config.in complexity coming up 8(

Rusty.

--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
-
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/