Re: Fw: [PATCH] Re: module_param() doesn't seem to work in2.6.6-rc1

From: Rusty Russell
Date: Sat Apr 17 2004 - 18:23:55 EST

On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 18:18, Andrew Morton wrote:
> OK?

Yes, but I prefer this version, which actually checks whether the
section exists, rather than checking the size (same effect, but this is

Name: Warn if module_param and MODULE_PARM mixed
Status: Trivial
From: Pavel Roskin <proski@xxxxxxx>

If you use both module_param (new) and MODULE_PARM (obsolete) in a
module, only the second gets recognised. Warn.

diff -urpN --exclude TAGS -X /home/rusty/devel/kernel/kernel-patches/current-dontdiff --minimal .14500-linux-2.6.6-rc1-bk1/kernel/module.c .14500-linux-2.6.6-rc1-bk1.updated/kernel/module.c
--- .14500-linux-2.6.6-rc1-bk1/kernel/module.c 2004-04-15 16:06:55.000000000 +1000
+++ .14500-linux-2.6.6-rc1-bk1.updated/kernel/module.c 2004-04-18 09:17:26.000000000 +1000
@@ -1541,6 +1541,10 @@ static struct module *load_module(void _
/ sizeof(struct obsolete_modparm),
sechdrs, symindex,
(char *)sechdrs[strindex].sh_addr);
+ if (setupindex)
+ printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: Ignoring new-style "
+ "parameters in presence of obsolete ones\n",
+ mod->name);
} else {
/* Size of section 0 is 0, so this works well if no params */
err = parse_args(mod->name, mod->args,

Anyone who quotes me in their signature is an idiot -- Rusty Russell

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at