From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:37:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:37:28 -0500 Received: from ppp0.ocs.com.au ([203.34.97.3]:18705 "HELO mail.ocs.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:37:12 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 From: Keith Owens To: Russell King cc: Werner.Almesberger@epfl.ch (Werner Almesberger), david_luyer@pacific.net.au (David Luyer), alan@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: PATCH: "Pass module parameters" to built-in drivers In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:55:23 -0000." <200101222155.f0MLtNe01781@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:37:02 +1100 Message-ID: <22446.980231822@ocs3.ocs-net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:55:23 +0000 (GMT), Russell King wrote: >Hmm, don't we already have all that __setup() stuff laying around? Ok, >it might not be built into the .o for modules, but it could be. Could >we not do something along the lines of: > >1. User passes parameters on the kernel command line. >2. modprobe reads the kernel command line and sorts out those that > correspond to the __setup() stuff in the module being loaded. >3. modprobe combines in any extra settings from /etc/modules.conf > >IIRC, this would satisfy the original posters intentions, presumably >without too much hastle? Apart from the fact that it is completely backwards from the original intent. The problem is objects that have MODULE_PARM but no __setup. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/