Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:59:37 +0100 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |