On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:32:35 -0500,
Paul Gortmaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm curious as to what boot argument equivalent you envision for e.g.
>
>options ne io=0x280,0x300 irq=10,12 bad=0,1
ne.io=0x280,0x300 ne.irq=10,12 ne.bad=0,1. I might even be generous
and handle ne{io=0x280,0x300 ir
Keith Owens wrote:
> Inconsistent methods for setting the same parameter are bad. I can and
> will do this cleanly in 2.5. Parameters will be always be keyed by the
> module name, even if they are compiled in. Adding an inconsistent
I'm curious as to what boot argument equivalent you envision
Hi!
Well, I did a very similar patch about 2.3.3x and it got even
included in -acXX during a Linus vacation - but it got dropped for
some reason (f.i. such an approach does not work well for multi-file
modules, I was told). I re-sent it during the 2.4.0-test phase and
got no reply, so I think jus
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:55:23 + (GMT),
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Keith Owens writes:
> It is part of my total Makefile rewrite for 2.5. A clean
> implementation of module parameters mapping to setup code requires the
> mapping of a source file to the module it is linked into. That
> information is difficult to extract with the current Makefile system,
> my re
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:56:38 +0100,
Werner Almesberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Keith Owens wrote:
>> Inconsistent methods for setting the same parameter are bad. I can and
>> will do this cleanly in 2.5.
>
>If your approach isn't overly intrusive (i.e. doesn't require changes
>to all files c
Keith Owens wrote:
> Inconsistent methods for setting the same parameter are bad. I can and
> will do this cleanly in 2.5.
If your approach isn't overly intrusive (i.e. doesn't require changes
to all files containing module parameters, or such), maybe you could
make a patch for 2.4.x and wave it
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 15:54:56 +1100,
David Luyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here's a proposed v2.4 "quick fix" to allow specifying "module parameters" to
>any of the many drivers without option parsers when built in to the kernel.
Fundamental problem: you assume that each module is built from a
Alan, Keith, All,
Here's a proposed v2.4 "quick fix" to allow specifying "module parameters" to
any of the many drivers without option parsers when built in to the kernel.
I understand Keith has intentions to do this differently in v2.5, however I'd
be happy if something along these lines could
9 matches
Mail list logo
