![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Greg KH wrote: > > I think we still want to make sure that the module author has explicitly > > accounted for all of the hooks, in case new hooks are added. > > But with this patch, if the module author hasn't specified a hook, they > get the "dummy" ones. So the structure should always be full of > pointers, making the VERIFY_STRUCT macro pointless. Yes, but defaulting unspecified hooks to dummy operations could be dangerous. A module might appear to compile and run perfectly well, but be missing some important new hook. - James -- James Morris <jmorris@intercode.com.au> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||