Re: [PATCH] Module parameters reimplementation 0/4

[Rusty Russell]

In message <[e-mail]> you write:
> 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'.

Now we're descending into sophistry.  But PARAM() is useful in (say)
init/main.c, as well, and it's a stretch to call it a module...

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