Re: linux-next: Tree for August 14 (sysfs/acpi errors)

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 05:48:26AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>> They have been module options, not prefixed kernel parameters so far,
>> and the prefix was just the module name.
>> So it just strikes back, that acpi uses generic names for the modules,
>> there would have been no problem if "power" would be called "acpi_power"
>> and the options would just be "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 expecting
>> 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.

It is a WARN() call, not a BUG().

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html