Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Dec 1999 13:28:25 +0000 (GMT) | From | Tigran Aivazian <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |