"David Woodhouse wrote:"
> firstname.lastname@example.org said:
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_ISAPNP
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_ISAPNP) || (defined(CONFIG_ISAPNP_MODULE) && defined(MODULE))
> The result here would be a 3c509 module which differs depending on whether
> the ISAPNP module happened to be compiled at the same time or not.
I'm just thinking whether the ISA PnP hardware related modules should depend
on isa-pnp.o at all
(I mean having different behaviour of a the SAME (compiled) module depending
on whether isa-pnp.o is available or not)
It is just adding some persistent pointers for isa-pnp functions to the
kernel and teaching the modules to use request_module(). Probably also some
hacking to keep away from already used ISA PnP hardware during
Also implementing "nopnp" option should be mandatory, IMHO.
> The ISAPNP-specific parts of the code aren't large. Please consider
> including them unconditionally instead.
I see no objection if __init for modules is implemented...
-- ======================================================================= Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz email@example.com phone (48)(58) 347 14 61 Faculty of Applied Phys. & Math., Technical University of Gdansk
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 31 2001 - 21:00:45 EST