Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | [PATCH] SET_MODULE_OWNER comment | Date | Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:23:38 +1000 |
| |
Re-xmit. This should clarify when to use SET_MODULE_OWNER: some people thought it was the One True Way to do the owner assignment.
Linus, pleae apply. Rusty.
diff -urpN --exclude TAGS -X /home/rusty/devel/kernel/kernel-patches/current-dontdiff --minimal linux-2.5.67-bk1/include/linux/module.h working-2.5.67-bk1-set-owner/include/linux/module.h --- linux-2.5.67-bk1/include/linux/module.h 2003-04-08 11:15:01.000000000 +1000 +++ working-2.5.67-bk1-set-owner/include/linux/module.h 2003-04-09 15:15:47.000000000 +1000 @@ -408,6 +408,12 @@ __attribute__((section(".gnu.linkonce.th #endif /* MODULE */ #define symbol_request(x) try_then_request_module(symbol_get(x), "symbol:" #x) + +/* If you want backwards compat: some structs didn't have owner fields once */ +/* Think of SET_MODULE_OWNER like an IBM mainframe: leave it in a dark + corner for years, don't break it, but don't ever upgrade it either :) + If there is something newer and sexier than the mainframe, it's ok to + use that instead. The mainframe won't feel lonely. -- Jeff Garzik */ #define SET_MODULE_OWNER(dev) ((dev)->owner = THIS_MODULE) /* BELOW HERE ALL THESE ARE OBSOLETE AND WILL VANISH */ -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/
| |