Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: SET_MODULE_OWNER? | Date | Tue, 08 Apr 2003 13:46:52 +1000 |
| |
In message <3E923390.9010206@pobox.com> you write: > > ie. AFAICT it only buys you 2.2 compatibility, and even then only if > > you #define it at the top of your driver. > > no, farther back than that, to infinity and beyond :) The idea of the > macro is that on earlier kernels, it is simply a no-op, and module > refcounting is handled by other means.
Crap. Since hch removed the other module ops, if your module does its own refcount THAT won't compile in 2.5.
> > I still don't understand: please demonstrate a use in existing source. > > demonstrate? grep for it. It's used quite a bit. Removal of > SET_MODULE_OWNER looks to me to be pointless churn for negative gain. > If if you wish to pointedly ignore the old-source compatibility angle, > it is a nice convenience macro.
This is complete crap. It's an obfuscation macro, with no backwards compatibility capabilities as currently implemented.
Christoph went through and substituted try_inc_mod_count to try_module_get, for no gain, and broke backwards compatibility.
Unlike that, substituting dev->owner = THIS_MODULE; has no backwards compatibility loss, and it removes a confusing and pointless macro which *never* had a point.
Unless you can come up with a real *reason*, I'll move it back under "deprecated" and start substituting.
Cheers, Rusty. -- 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/
| |