On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 18:28 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:02:17 +0000 Byron Bradley <byron.bbradley@gmail.com> 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?

Only insofar as we're still supporting ramdisks in the first place.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/