From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756089AbYHPDsh (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:48:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751444AbYHPDsZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:48:25 -0400 Received: from mga07.intel.com ([143.182.124.22]:56213 "EHLO azsmga101.ch.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752590AbYHPDsY (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:48:24 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,220,1217833200"; d="scan'208";a="34300262" Message-ID: <48A64E0A.8090408@linux.intel.com> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 05:48:26 +0200 From: Andi Kleen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kay Sievers CC: Randy Dunlap , Stephen Rothwell , gregkh , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for August 14 (sysfs/acpi errors) References: <20080814172945.250a27f2.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080814083828.d10e126d.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <3ae72650808150427q364842ccicf0a0978b30ca98c@mail.gmail.com> <20080815085836.67e420f1.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <1218854219.3629.30.camel@lgn.site> <48A64235.2030108@linux.intel.com> <1218856798.3629.45.camel@lgn.site> In-Reply-To: <1218856798.3629.45.camel@lgn.site> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > 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". > > 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. -Andi