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: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 04:30:34 +0200 Message-ID: <48A78D4A.70609@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> <48A64235.2030108@linux.intel.com> <1218856798.3629.45.camel@lgn.site> <48A64E0A.8090408@linux.intel.com> <20080816044714.GA19886@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:2053 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751179AbYHQCab (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:30:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080816044714.GA19886@kroah.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Greg KH Cc: Kay Sievers , Randy Dunlap , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 05:48:26AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: >>> They have been module options, not prefixed kernel parameters so fa= r, >>> and the prefix was just the module name. >>> So it just strikes back, that acpi uses generic names for the modul= es, >>> there would have been no problem if "power" would be called "acpi_p= ower" >>> and the options would just be =EF=BB=BF"acpi.acpica_version" and >>> "acpi_power.nocheck". >>> But well, there are driver modules just called "option", so acpi is= not >>> that bad. :) >>>> I think the generic params code should be fixed to handle this. >>> We could try to look up existing directories to use instead of expe= cting >>> that we need to create and own them. I guess, >> sysfs does this anyways, doesn't it. We would just need to teach it >> to not BUG() in this case, perhaps with a special entry point. >> Also a BUG() in general seems a little harsh for this, surely a WARN= _ON >> should be enough. >=20 > It is a WARN() call, not a BUG(). Ok. Can we remove it? Or add a new entry point that allows to disable i= t? I don't think relying on link order like Rusty proposes is a good long = term solution. -Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html