From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 17:25:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 17:25:23 -0500 Received: from dp.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:29611 "EHLO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 17:25:20 -0500 From: Rusty Russell To: Jeff Garzik Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2/4 Module Parameter Support In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:36:47 CDT." <3DD9DBFF.5000009@pobox.com> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:57:00 +1100 Message-Id: <20021124223234.611262C0D9@lists.samba.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <3DD9DBFF.5000009@pobox.com> you write: > Question for the crowd: > > Should linux/module.h include moduleparam.h, since drivers are used to > include'ing module.h to get all their MODULE_xxx desires fulfilled? Hmm, they already need linux/init.h for module_init() and module_exit(). Of course the backwards compat MODULE_PARM must not require an extra include (and it doesn't, does it?). I guess this leads to the bigger "what are the rules for new header files?" question, which I'm not prepared to try to answer. Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.