public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ?
@ 2009-04-15 11:11 devzero
  2009-04-15 19:42 ` Sam Ravnborg
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: devzero @ 2009-04-15 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel; +Cc: alan, sam

Hi, 

some time ago i spotted that around 20% of the Linux modules lacking a MODULE_DESCRIPTION field.  ( http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10770 )

I think it`s not a practicable approach to get this fixed by some single person digging trough all the modules. 
If itŽs fixed for a kernel release, one year later there would be another bunch of new modules lacking the description field again.

What about a build-time or run-time warning for missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION ? (as it exists for MODULE_LICENSE in modpost.c) 

Wouldn`t that solve the "problem" automatically as time goes by ?

regards
Roland








____________________________________________________________________
Psssst! Schon vom neuen WEB.DE MultiMessenger gehört? 
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.produkte.web.de/messenger/?did=3123


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ?
@ 2009-04-15 21:59 devzero
  2009-04-16 11:25 ` Sam Ravnborg
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: devzero @ 2009-04-15 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Randy Dunlap, Sam Ravnborg; +Cc: alan, linux-kernel

> >> on x86_64 allmodconfig (2.6.30-rc2), here are the "missing"s that are reported:
> >>
> >> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs_example_explicit.o
> >> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs_example_macros.o
> >> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.o
> > ...
> > We need to bring that list down before we apply the patch.
> > Is it worth it?
> 
> I see 424 modules without MODULE_DESCRIPTION (in the list above) and
> 3127 .c files that contain "MODULE_DESCRIPTION".
> 
> To me it's a Nice to have but not Required.  (i.e., not worth it IMO)
> 
> -- 
> ~Randy
> 

i can offer spending an afternoon (or more) on compiling a list of modulenames + missing description for review.
if that list is complete and ack`ed, i could create a patch or patch series from that. 
(maybe the list could be split into logical parts, too)

would that be welcomed ?

roland

____________________________________________________________________
Psssst! Schon vom neuen WEB.DE MultiMessenger gehört? 
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.produkte.web.de/messenger/?did=3123


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2009-04-16 12:27 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-04-15 11:11 Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ? devzero
2009-04-15 19:42 ` Sam Ravnborg
2009-04-15 21:15   ` Randy Dunlap
2009-04-15 21:21     ` Sam Ravnborg
2009-04-15 21:26       ` Randy Dunlap
2009-04-16 12:27         ` Alan Cox
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-04-15 21:59 devzero
2009-04-16 11:25 ` Sam Ravnborg

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox