On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 01:24:42PM +0100, Andreas Hindborg wrote: > "Greg KH" <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 12:30:45PM +0100, Andreas Hindborg wrote: > >> This series extends the `module!` macro with support module parameters. > > > > Eeek, why? > > > > Module parameters are from the 1990's, back when we had no idea what we > > were doing and thought that a simple "one variable for a driver that > > controls multiple devices" was somehow a valid solution :) > > > > Please only really add module parameters if you can prove that you > > actually need a module parameter. > > I really need module parameters to make rust null block feature > compatible with C null block. Is that a requirement? That wasn't documented here :( You should have put the user of these apis in the series as you have that code already in the tree, right? > Let's not block interfacing parts of the kernel because we decided that > the way we (well not me, I was not around) did things in the 80's was > less than stellar. I mean, we would get nowhere. On the contrary, if we don't learn from our past mistakes, we will constantly keep making them and prevent others from "doing the right thing" by default. I would strongly prefer that any driver not have any module parameters at all, as drivers don't work properly that way (again, they need to handle multiple devices, which does not work for a module parameter.) That's why we created sysfs, configfs, and lots of other things, to learn from our past mistakes. thanks, greg k-h
