[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: SET_MODULE_OWNER?
    On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 03:46:44PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
    > Alan Cox wrote:
    > > > Unless you can come up with a real *reason*, I'll move it back under
    > > > "deprecated" and start substituting.
    > >
    > > Thats fun, and the rest of us can play submit patches to substitute it
    > > back.
    > If Jeff's drivers are using <kcompat>, can't kcompat provide the macro
    > for 2.4 and 2.5 kernels in the same way it does for 2.2 kernels?

    No. Because Rusty wanted to replace a "func_call()" object with a
    direct reference to a structure. Direct struct member references is the
    big issue that we are trying to _avoid_, because they are the single
    most painful issue to deal with, WRT source back-compat. You can ifdef
    around a function quite easily, but not a direct struct member use.

    To give another concrete example, I was able to take a 2.4 PCI driver
    and make it work under 2.2 transparently, with a single exception: The
    "driver_data" member of the new struct pci_dev. Drivers were directly
    referencing that, which was a new addition in 2.4.x (really 2.3.x). So,
    I created the abstraction wrappers pci_[gs]et_drvdata(), which does
    nothing but a simple C assignment (or read, for _get_). The addition of
    this wrapper removed the need for nasty ifdefs in the drivers for 2.2
    versus 2.4, and make it possible for the kernel source to continue to be
    readable, "pretty", and ifdef-free.


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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.019 / U:19.336 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site