Add missing MODULE_PARAM to dummy.c (and MAINTAINERShip)
PATCH 1/1 Add missing MODULE_PARAM to dummy.c (and MAINTAINERShip)
Hello:
It seems the "dummy" network interface driver is missing some MODULE_* macros, needed with kernel 2.6.x and module-init-tools to show information about the module (parameters, author, description, etc).
A patch follows to (hopefully) correct this. Another patch includes an entry in the MAINTAINERS file for the "dummy" module. However, I suppose the module author (Nick Holloway) will come up and say if he should still be considered as the module maintainer, so to add the correct information to the MAINTAINERS file.
Hope the patchs are correct, or at least useful to note the missing bits I was trying to "patch" and someone else does the "technical" work :-)
Greetings.
Signature · 40 lines
Jose Luis Domingo Lopez
Linux Registered User #189436 Debian Linux Sid (Linux 2.6.5)
diff -Nrup linux-2.6.5/drivers/net/dummy.c linux-2.6.5-new/drivers/net/dummy.c
--- linux-2.6.5/drivers/net/dummy.c 2004-04-04 17:45:54.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.5-new/drivers/net/dummy.c 2004-04-08 19:23:23.000000000 +0200
@@ -89,7 +89,8 @@ static struct net_device_stats *dummy_ge
static struct net_device **dummies;
/* Number of dummy devices to be set up by this module. */
-module_param(numdummies, int, 0);
+MODULE_PARM(numdummies, "i");
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(numdummies, "Maximum number of dummy devices (defaults to one)");
static int __init dummy_init_one(int index)
{
@@ -144,3 +145,5 @@ static void __exit dummy_cleanup_module(
module_init(dummy_init_module);
module_exit(dummy_cleanup_module);
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Dummy network interface driver");
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Nick Holloway <[email protected]>");
diff -Nrup linux-2.6.5/MAINTAINERS linux-2.6.5-new/MAINTAINERS
--- linux-2.6.5/MAINTAINERS 2004-04-04 17:49:26.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.5-new/MAINTAINERS 2004-04-08 19:22:01.000000000 +0200
@@ -707,6 +707,12 @@ M: [email protected]
M: [email protected]
S: Maintained
+DUMMY NETWORK INTERFACE DRIVER
+P: Nick Holloway
+M: [email protected]
+L: [email protected]
+S: Supported
+
DVB SUBSYSTEM AND DRIVERS
P: LinuxTV.org Project
M: [email protected]drivers/net/dummy.c static struct net_device_stats *dummy_ge · line 93
Quoted 10 lines · * Jose Luis Domingo Lopez ([email protected]) wrote:
diff -Nrup
linux-2.6.5/drivers/net/dummy.clinux-2.6.5-new/drivers/net/dummy.cdrivers/net/dummy.c +2
-1@@ -89,7 +89,8 @@ static struct net_device_stats *dummy_gestatic struct net_device **dummies;/* Number of dummy devices to be set up by this module. */ -module_param (numdummies, int,0 ); +MODULE_PARM (numdummies,"i" ); +MODULE_PARM_DESC (numdummies,"Maximum number of dummy devices (defaults to one)" );
this is going backwards. module_param is the newer (preferred) interface.
thanks,
-chris
Signature · 1 line
Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net
Quoted 2 lines · Chris Wright
this is going backwards.
module_paramis the newer (preferred) interface.
I (incorrectly) based my assumptions on the fact that "modinfo dummy" didn't return any information about the module parameter. I also had a look at some other modules, like "bonding", "rtl8139", and I assumed that the MODULE_* macros were the 2.6.x way of doing things.
I was obviously wrong, sorry for the waste of time (anyways, it seems there are several kernel modules waiting to be updated, maybe I should give them a look and learn something and try to "fix" them).
Greetings.
Signature · 2 lines
Jose Luis Domingo Lopez Linux Registered User #189436 Debian Linux Sid (Linux 2.6.5)
Quoted 5 lines · Jose Luis Domingo Lopez
A patch follows to (hopefully) correct this. Another patch includes an entry in the
MAINTAINERSfile for the "dummy" module. However, I suppose the module author (Nick Holloway) will come up and say if he should still be considered as the module maintainer, so to add the correct information to theMAINTAINERSfile.
I wouldn't consider myself the maintainer. I did the original development to get it into the tree (nearly 10 years ago), but changes have been made by others.
I don't think an explicit maintainer needs to be mentioned, as it falls under the umbrella of network maintainance.
Signature · 2 lines
`O O' | [email protected] // ^ \\ | http://www.pyrites.org.uk/
Quoted 9 lines · * Jose Luis Domingo Lopez ([email protected]) wrote:
Quoted 2 lines · Chris Wright
this is going backwards.
module_paramis the newer (preferred) interface.I (incorrectly) based my assumptions on the fact that "modinfo dummy" didn't return any information about the module parameter. I also had a look at some other modules, like "bonding", "rtl8139", and I assumed that the MODULE_* macros were the 2.6.x way of doing things.
It's a mix. module_param(), MODULE_PARM_DESC(), MODULE_LICENSE(), MODULE_AUTHOR(), MODULE_DESCRIPTION().
So the whole patch isn't bad, just the bit like:
-module_param()
+MODULE_PARM()
Quoted 3 lines
I was obviously wrong, sorry for the waste of time (anyways, it seems there are several kernel modules waiting to be updated, maybe I should give them a look and learn something and try to "fix" them).
Sure, although some of these changes may not be accepted simply because they create noise, patch conflicts etc at a time where stability is more important. So new code should use the new ones, old code may not all be converted for some time.
thanks,
-chris
Signature · 1 line
Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net