lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [idea] request_module(const char *fmt, ...);
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> just a final confirmation (before I start to irritate someone with a
> multitude of mails) - although I still think macro approach is
> unacceptable, using static inline (thanks to David for pointing out) is
> acceptable but leaves one final question which can only be answered by the
> maker (of decisions):
>
> Q. What is the right design decision for Linux - to have a CONFIG_KMOD
> dependency in the header that declares request_module() or to have
> an extra function call in a non-performance critical code path that
> invokes request_module() but avoid the dependency?

Why don't you compile with

(a) calls to request_module()
(b) no calls

and see how much difference it makes to the kernel size? If there's not
much difference, nobody should care that much. request_module() calls
shouldn't be in extremely time critical code anyway. If it makes a big
difference, then its important to be able to disable it somehow.

btw, I think static inline varargs functions are not inlined by GCC, so
you can't use that to optimise away the calls.

You can use this though:

#define request_modulef(fmt...) ((void) 0)

Enjoy,
-- Jamie

-
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:0.149 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site