Re: Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ?

[devzero]

> >> on x86_64 allmodconfig (2.6.30-rc2), here are the "missing"s that are reported:
> >>
> >> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs_example_explicit.o
> >> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs_example_macros.o
> >> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.o
> > ...
> > We need to bring that list down before we apply the patch.
> > Is it worth it?
> 
> I see 424 modules without MODULE_DESCRIPTION (in the list above) and
> 3127 .c files that contain "MODULE_DESCRIPTION".
> 
> To me it's a Nice to have but not Required.  (i.e., not worth it IMO)
> 
> -- 
> ~Randy
> 

i can offer spending an afternoon (or more) on compiling a list of modulenames + missing description for review.
if that list is complete and ack`ed, i could create a patch or patch series from that. 
(maybe the list could be split into logical parts, too)

would that be welcomed ?

roland

____________________________________________________________________
Psssst! Schon vom neuen WEB.DE MultiMessenger gehört? 
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.produkte.web.de/messenger/?did=3123

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/