Re: [PATCH] automatic module_init ordering

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207311201000.19799-100000@chaos.physics.uiowa.edu> y
ou write:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
> 
> > My PARAM code actually maps - to _ in parameter parsing, for exactly
> > this reason.  And only a complete idiot would put , in a module name,
> > so I don't care 8)
> 
> Tell that to the author of 53c7,8xx.o ;)

Consider that done.

> > As it happens, the configuration doesn't allow more than one to be
> > built in (they can all be modules though), so it's not actually a
> > problem even after parameter unification.
> 
> Hmmh, I think that'll need some testing. It will be fine if only one of 
> the three is "y", the others being "n/undef". However, it looks like it's 
> possible to have sth like "m/m/y", which would go wrong with the current 
> approach.

That's a bug.  That configuration makes no sense (the modules won't
load).  Hmmm... more Config.in complexity coming up 8(

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