Hello, Philip Hands, on lun. 13 févr. 2017 11:16:19 +0100, wrote: > Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> writes: > > On Sun, 2017-02-12 at 12:26 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > >> Just wondering: can't we just always do both? I.e. remove the varnodot > >> check. Sure that's ugly because then we have both the commandline and > >> the module, but to me it's the least horrifying solution. And AIUI > >> that'd actually be needed if for instance with a new kernel release a > >> driver gets migrated from compiled-in to loadable module or vice-versa. > > > > I agree that the current check is incorrect and should be removed. > > It's been possible for a long time to have dotted parameters for built- > > in code, whether or not that code could ever be built as a module. > > > >> So, does it look too ugly? > > > > It is ugly that we will still end up writing module parameters for non- > > existent modules. > > Well, there are only about ten of these prefixes at present AFAICT: [...] > so we could maintain a list of known non-module prefixes to filter the > options by. As long as we catch the commonly used ones, that's fine as > it doesn't really matter if the list is not complete, since then we fall > back to being a bit ugly.
That looks good to me. Anything against this solution? Samuel
