lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: to CONFIG_KMOD or not to CONFIG_KMOD
Hi Keith,

Thank you for your opinion. Then, you would agree with this patch I made
ages ago:

http://www.ocston.org/~tigran/patches/kmod-2.3.36-pre1.patch

I will send it to Linus when I get a spare minute but for now - all
reviewers are welcome.

Regards,
------
Tigran A. Aivazian | http://www.sco.com
Escalations Research Group | tel: +44-(0)1923-813796
Santa Cruz Operation Ltd | http://www.ocston.org/~tigran

On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Keith Owens wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:27:14 +0000 (GMT),
> Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.COM> wrote:
> >What is the official status on the situations like:
> >
> >check some resource;
> >if (resource == NULL) {
> > char buf[32];
> > sprintf(buffer, "foo-bar-XYZ");
> > request_module(buffer);
> > if (resource is still NULL)
> > return -ENODEV; /* or whatever appropriate */
> >}
> >
> >The #ifdef CONFIG_KMODE around this type of code can be omitted (because
> >request_module() will be just noop) e.g. as is done in phone_open() (the
> >new Linux Telephony thingy) or it can be left for performance when any CPU
> >cycle is important e.g. as in fs/exec.c:search_binary_handler()
> >
> >Does everyone agree with such state of things or do you think one should
> >go through the whole source and clean it up removing all #ifdef
> >CONFIG_KMOD as they are strictly speaking superfluous?
>
> I would like to see all the #ifdef removed. With the current code,
> switching CONFIG_KMOD on or off recompiles far too much of the kernel.
>
>


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.226 / U:0.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site