Subject: Re: 2.6.1-mm4

From: Rusty Russell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:42:19 +1100

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:17:08 -0800
Andrew Morton <[email-masked]> 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