Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:23:32 +0200 | From | Magnus Damm <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RFC] disable built-in modules V2 |
| |
On Apr 7, 2005 4:23 AM, Roland Dreier <roland@topspin.com> wrote: > > > -#define module_init(x) __initcall(x); > > > +#define module_init(x) __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x); > > > > It would be better if there is brackets around them... like > > > > #define module_init(x) { __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x); } > > > > then we know it wont break some code like > > > > if (..) > > module_init(x); > > This is all completely academic, since module_init() is a declaration > that won't be inside any code, but in general it's better still to use > the do { } while (0) idiom like > > #define module_init(x) do { __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x); } while (0) > > so it won't break code like > > if (..) > module_init(x); > else > something_else(); > > (Yes, that code is nonsense but if you're going to nitpick, go all the way...)
Right. =) Anyway, besides nitpicking, is there any reason not to include this code? Or is the added feature considered plain bloat? Yes, the kernel will become a bit larger, but all the data added by this patch will go into the init section.
/ magnus - 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/
| |