[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page]
    On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Keith Owens wrote:

    > On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 00:54:51 +0000 (GMT),
    > David Woodhouse <> wrote:
    > >On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Keith Owens wrote:
    > >
    > >> I'm not sure why you think this can be used for module persistent
    > >> storage. If a module calls inter_module_register() on load, it should
    > >> call inter_module_unregister() on unload. All the registered data
    > >> points into the loaded module, remove the module and the storage
    > >> disappears as well.
    > >
    > >You can kmalloc() both the im_name and userdata arguments to
    > >inter_module_register and you ought to be able to pass NULL as the owner.
    > Ughh! That is definitely abusing the inter_module functions. If we
    > need persistent module storage then we should add a clean interface to
    > do it instead of using kmalloc and overloading inter_module_xxx.

    Why? It's got to get kmalloc'd anyway, and code reuse is
    _good_. Experiment with different names for inter_module_xxx until you
    feel happier :)

    > What do people think, do we need module persistent storage?

    The primary reason that I've often lamented its removal is for
    auto-loaded sound drivers to store their mixer level on unload, in order
    to reset to the same values upon being reloaded.

    > This will probably be a 2.5 change but I want to get an idea of the
    > requirements before coding anything.

    Strictly speaking, all the inter_module_xxx stuff should probably wait for


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.021 / U:4.432 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site