On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Lucas De Marchi > <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Rusty, >> >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> Err, yes. Don't remove module parameters, they're part of the API. Do >>>>>>> you have a particular example? >>>>>> >>>>>> So things like i915.i915_enable_ppgtt, which is there to enable >>>>>> something experimental, needs to stay forever once the relevant >>>>>> feature becomes non-experimental and non-optional? This seems silly. >>> ... >>>>>> Having the module parameter go away while still allowing the module to >>>>>> load seems like a good solution (possibly with a warning in the logs >>>>>> so the user can eventually delete the parameter). >>>>> >>>>> Why not do that for *every* missing parameter then? Why have this weird >>>>> notation where the user must know that the parameter might one day go >>>>> away? >>>> >>>> Fair enough. What about the other approach, then? Always warn if an >>>> option doesn't match (built-in or otherwise) but load the module >>>> anyways. >>> >>> What does everyone think of this? Jon, Lucas, does this match your >>> experience? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Rusty. >>> >>> Subject: modules: don't fail to load on unknown parameters. >>> >>> Although parameters are supposed to be part of the kernel API, experimental >>> parameters are often removed. In addition, downgrading a kernel might cause >>> previously-working modules to fail to load. >> >> I agree with this reasoning >> >>> >>> On balance, it's probably better to warn, and load the module anyway. >> >> However loading the module anyway would bring at least one drawback: >> if the user made a typo when passing the option the module would load >> anyway and he will probably not even look in the log, since there's >> was no errors from modprobe. >> >> For finit_module we could put a flag to trigger this behavior and >> propagate it to modprobe, but this is not possible with init_module(). >> I can't think in any other option right now... do you have any? > > Have a different finit_module return value for "successfully loaded, > but there were warnings" perhaps? Never mind. I was thinking that finit_module was new in 3.9. --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
