Re: [PATCH] Module parameters reimplementation 0/4

[Matthew Wilcox]

Rusty wrote:
> Jgarzik wrote:
> > Let's be more friendly to the namespace and call it something less
> > ambiguous, like MODULE_PARAM, even if that might not be strictly true in
> > 1% of the cases. IMO there are certainly valid local uses of 'PARAM' in
> > kernel code.
> 
> I disagree. It's a param, subsuming both __setup and MODULE_PARAM.
> The fact that it is implemented for modules is not something for the
> driver author to be concerned about (finally).

You're both wrong ;-)  `module' != `loadable module'.  module_init()
means `this is where you initialise this module', whether it's built-in
or synamically loaded.  MODULE_PARAM() should mean `this is a parameter
for this module', whether it's built-in or dynamically loaded.

-- 
Revolutions do not require corporate support.