On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 04:38:30PM +0100, Andreas Hindborg wrote: > "Greg KH" <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > 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: > I'm not getting a clear reading on the following, perhaps you can > clarify: > > - Is the community aligned on dropping module parameters for all new > drivers? > - If so, was this decided upon at some point or is this a fluid > decision that is just manifesting now? It's something that I've been saying in review comments of drivers for many many years now. Again, it was one of the main reasons we created configfs and sysfs all those decades ago, because module parameters just do not work properly for drivers in almost all cases. > - Does this ban of module parameters also cover cases where backwards > compatibility is desirable? No, we don't break existing kernel features, but if you are writing a new driver, don't add them and then there's no compatibility issue. We don't normally allow "rewrites" of drivers, but if we do, yes, you would have to implement the old features if needed. As you just seem to want to write an "example" block driver, no need to add the module option there, just do it right this time in how to properly configure things. > - Can we merge this so I can move forward at my current projected > course, or should I plan on dealing with not having this available? We generally do not want to merge apis without any real users, as it's hard to justify them, right? Also, we don't even know if they work properly or not. thanks, greg k-h
