From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for August 14 (sysfs/acpi errors) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:57:57 +0200 Message-ID: <48A64235.2030108@linux.intel.com> References: <20080814172945.250a27f2.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080814083828.d10e126d.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <3ae72650808150427q364842ccicf0a0978b30ca98c@mail.gmail.com> <20080815085836.67e420f1.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <1218854219.3629.30.camel@lgn.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1218854219.3629.30.camel@lgn.site> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kay Sievers Cc: Randy Dunlap , Stephen Rothwell , gregkh , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org >> Extract is: >> >> XXX adding modparam:'acpi.power_nocheck' 34 (ffffffff806a4cf0) > ... >> XXX adding modparam:'acpi.acpica_version' 45 (ffffffff806a4ea8) >=20 > Two different "modules" use the same prefix, which does not work with > the current logic, they need to live next to each other in the sequen= ce > of options. Sequence of options being defined by link order? > This adds a new option: > http://git.kernel.org/?p=3Dlinux/kernel/git/sfr/linux-next.git;a=3D= commitdiff;h=3D1382827e93799ec07790849e361267993cfe549e > =EF=BB=BFwhich specifies =EF=BB=BFMODULE_PARAM_PREFIX=3D"acpi." in: > drivers/acpi/power.c > In the same way as: > drivers/acpi/system.c >=20 > Seems, two different modules should not declare parameters in differe= nt > locations, and use the same MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX. That seems bogus to me. Assuming we have some code in a module and then= split it out into two different modules. Or move an option from one file to a= nother. Would we need to change the option name then? I think the generic params code should be fixed to handle this. -Andi