On Sun, 17 Aug 2008, Rusty Russell wrote: > 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". I think we (all) agree that we should keep the acpi gunk together, rather than creating namespace sprawl to satisfy the current sysfs code. > > >>> 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. This problem first shows up with the addition of the acpi.power_nocheck modparam, which is staged for 2.6.28. Is 2.6.28 "current" or longer term? thanks, -Len
