On Sunday 17 August 2008 12:30:34 Andi Kleen wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 05:48:26AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > >>> They have been module options, not prefixed kernel parameters so far, > >>> and the prefix was just the module name. > >>> So it just strikes back, that acpi uses generic names for the modules, > >>> there would have been no problem if "power" would be called > >>> "acpi_power" and the options would just be "acpi.acpica_version" and > >>> "acpi_power.nocheck". > >>> But well, there are driver modules just called "option", so acpi is not > >>> that bad. :) > >>> > >>>> I think the generic params code should be fixed to handle this. > >>> > >>> We could try to look up existing directories to use instead of > >>> expecting that we need to create and own them. I guess, > >> > >> sysfs does this anyways, doesn't it. We would just need to teach it > >> to not BUG() in this case, perhaps with a special entry point. > >> Also a BUG() in general seems a little harsh for this, surely a WARN_ON > >> should be enough. > > > > It is a WARN() call, not a BUG(). > > Ok. Can we remove it? Or add a new entry point that allows to disable it? > > I don't think relying on link order like Rusty proposes is a good long term > solution. To be clear, I agree with Andi. If this is for current kernel I'd just fix link order, for longer term we need something cleverer. Cheers, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
