From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:33246 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751641Ab3GCBQD (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:16:03 -0400 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Allow optional module parameters In-Reply-To: <9F26321B-7088-4D16-80D5-72EB388F8E49@redhat.com> References: <87ehfhtftn.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87sj3tsawh.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87hak8qfu5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87sj3qpwdz.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87a9m6sri3.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <9F26321B-7088-4D16-80D5-72EB388F8E49@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 09:58:49 +0930 Message-ID: <87k3l8fpvi.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jonathan Masters Cc: Lucas De Marchi , Andy Lutomirski , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ben Hutchings , "linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org" Jonathan Masters writes: > One caveat. Sometimes we have manufactured parameters intentionally to cause a module to fail. We should standardize that piece. Certainly. Can you give an example? Cheers, Rusty.