From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: 2.6.1-mm4 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:42:19 +1100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040119224219.65991501.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <20040115225948.6b994a48.akpm@osdl.org> <20040118001217.GE3125@werewolf.able.es> <20040117215535.0e4674b8.akpm@osdl.org> <20040118081128.GA3153@werewolf.able.es> <20040118001708.09291455.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jamagallon@able.es, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <20040118001708.09291455.akpm@osdl.org> List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:17:08 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > Presumably, recent gcc's remove the variable altogether and just expand the > constant inline. When the central module code checks for the parameter's > existence in the module's symbol table it errors out. MODULE_PARM considered harmful. Unfortunately, there's no easy way of fixing this, since MODULE_PARM() is often used on variables which aren't declared yet 8(. (I tried this in an early patch). Migrating to module_param() is the Right Thing here IMHO, which actually takes the damn address, Rusty. -- there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too many doers quoting their contemporaries. -- Larry McVoy