Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-37,: Re: [PATCH] final support for MODULE_PARAM as kernel commandline

# Re: [PATCH] final support for MODULE_PARAM as kernel commandline

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 14:13:15 +0100 (BST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] 2.3.18: siginfo data available for all signals"
- Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: Regarding Multi Processes"

> I recommend that modules built into kernel use modname.parmname. Use
> the same syntax when loaded as a separate module but change insmod so
>
> insmod modname parm1=val1 parm2=val2
>
> is tried "as is" first then retried as
>
> insmod modname modname.parm1=val1 modname.parm2=val2

It should try the other way around. The first has an ambiguous failure
case the second does not.

> if the parameter names do not exist in the module. It would require
> 2.3.18-ac users to upgrade to a new modutils but that is nothing new.
> Parameter files would be unchanged and both code and parm files would
> be backwards compatible.
>
> Shall I upgrade insmod to automatically insert a modname prefix on
> parameters if the raw parameter name does not exist?

If someone wants to fix up the modules.h macros to generate the right
foo.bar (and remember thats not a valid variable name in C) then this
sounds the right approach

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] 2.3.18: siginfo data available for all signals"
- Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: Regarding Multi Processes"