Re: Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ?

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 01:11:46PM +0200, devzero@web.de wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> some time ago i spotted that around 20% of the Linux modules lacking a MODULE_DESCRIPTION field.  ( http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10770 )
> 
> I think it`s not a practicable approach to get this fixed by some single person digging trough all the modules. 
> If itŽs fixed for a kernel release, one year later there would be another bunch of new modules lacking the description field again.
> 
> What about a build-time or run-time warning for missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION ? (as it exists for MODULE_LICENSE in modpost.c) 


You mean something like the following untested patch?
If it works what is the output for an allmodconfig build?

	Sam

diff --git a/scripts/mod/modpost.c b/scripts/mod/modpost.c
index 8cc7061..5317d6f 100644
--- a/scripts/mod/modpost.c
+++ b/scripts/mod/modpost.c
@@ -1553,6 +1553,7 @@ static void read_symbols(char *modname)
 	const char *symname;
 	char *version;
 	char *license;
+	char *description;
 	struct module *mod;
 	struct elf_info info = { };
 	Elf_Sym *sym;
@@ -1584,6 +1585,11 @@ static void read_symbols(char *modname)
 		license = get_next_modinfo(info.modinfo, info.modinfo_len,
 					   "license", license);
 	}
+	description = get_modinfo(info.modinfo, info.modinfo_len, "description");
+	if (info.modinfo && !description && !is_vmlinux(modname))
+		warn("modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in %s\n"
+		     "see include/linux/module.h for "
+		     "more information\n", modname);
 
 	for (sym = info.symtab_start; sym < info.symtab_stop; sym++) {
 		symname = info.strtab + sym->st_name;