On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 14:57 +0200, Bert Wesarg wrote: > > Hello, > > > > there seems to be a bug, at least for me, in kernel/param.c for arrays > > with .num == NULL. If .num == NULL, the function param_array_set() uses > > &.max for the call to param_array(), wich alters the .max value to the > > number of arguments. The result is, you can't set more array arguments as > > the last time you set the parameter. > > Yes. But this ignores the larger problem, in that the printing routines > need *some* way of telling how many to print. We could add a new > element for this case, at the price of enlarging the structure a little > for every array parameter. I think you'll find that with your patch, > the code does this: > > $ insmod example.ko array=1,2,3 > $ cat /sys/module/example/parameters/array > 1,2,3,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 Yes, but in this case you can/will past a num pointer to module_param_array(), when it is important to know how many arguments are specified. greetings, bert > > Cheers, > Rusty. > -- > A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman > - 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/
