On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:02:17 +0000 Byron Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In arch/arm/kernel/setup.c:setup_ramdisk(), rd_size is set from the
> boot tags. The replacement ramdisk driver has rd_size as static
> which causes linking to fail when ramdisk is built-in.
>
but...
> diff --git a/drivers/block/brd.c b/drivers/block/brd.c
> index 5ef1d26..8536480 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/brd.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/brd.c
> @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ static struct block_device_operations brd_fops = {
> * And now the modules code and kernel interface.
> */
> static int rd_nr;
> -static int rd_size = CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_SIZE;
> +int rd_size = CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_SIZE;
> module_param(rd_nr, int, 0);
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(rd_nr, "Maximum number of brd devices");
> module_param(rd_size, int, 0);
rd_size is a module parameter so it is settable via the
syntax-which-i-can-never-remember. rd.rd_size=1024 or something like that.
If that's all sane, do we have some back-compat reason to continue to
support the special and duplicative rd_size parameter?
(If we never did crap like this:
arch/arm/kernel/setup.c: extern int rd_size, rd_image_start, rd_prompt,
rd_doload;
then this sort of problem wouldn't occur so often)
MIPS has the same problem.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
