Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:08:31 +1000 | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RFC] new module interface |
| |
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:02:36 +0200 (CEST) Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> The patch below is for 2.4 but it's easily ported to 2.5, beside of this I > think the core is stable and will allow a more flexible module handling > in the future. After updating to 2.5 and updating some more archs I will > submit the patch officially, so any feedback now would be very welcome. > (The patch requires no new modutils, although a new version could avoid > some workarounds, but that can wait.)
Hi Roman!
Firstly, I give up: what kernel is this patch against? It's hard to read a patch this big which doesn't apply to any kernel I can find 8(
> DEFINE_MODULE > .start = start_affs_fs, > .stop = stop_affs_fs, > .exit = exit_affs_fs, > .usecount = usecount_affs_fs, > DEFINE_MODULE_END
Interesting approach. Splitting init and start and stop and exit is normal, but encapsulating the usecount is different. I made start and exit return void, though.
Hmmm... you sidestepped the "rmmod -f" problem, by running module->start() again if module->exit() fails. I decided against this because module authors have to make sure this works.
I chose the more standard "INIT(init, start)" & "EXIT(stop, exit)" which makes it easier to drop the exit part if it's built-in.
My favorite part is including the builtin-modules. I assume this means that "request_module("foo")" returns success if CONFIG_DRIVER_FOO=y now?
Sorry I've been slack in posting my patch: will do tonight I promise 8)
Cheers! Rusty. -- there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too many doers quoting their contemporaries. -- Larry McVoy - 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/
| |