From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:47604 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933340Ab3CTDNp (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:13:45 -0400 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Allow optional module parameters In-Reply-To: <1363722051.3491.29.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com> References: <87ehfhtftn.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87sj3tsawh.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87hak8qfu5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <1363722051.3491.29.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:01:01 +1030 Message-ID: <87zjxypztm.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: Ben Hutchings Cc: Andy Lutomirski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, Jon Masters , Lucas De Marchi Ben Hutchings writes: > This should also go to stable, so the downgrading issue doesn't continue > to bite people. Andy was complaining about experimental params going away: I haven't heard a single complaint about the downgrading issue. I think it's a nice to have, which is why I mentioned it. I also CC'd the two maintainers most likely to know if it *is* a current problem. And note that this code has been this way for over ten years! No bug report, no cc:stable. What if people were relying on detecting module parameters by the load failing? I'd rather find out when they upgrade to a new kernel instead of poisoning the old ones, too. Cheers, Rusty.