Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:42:24 -0700 | From | "Dan Williams" <> | Subject | Re: __unsafe() usage |
| |
On 7/23/07, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 19:59 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 09:05:54AM -0700, Nelson, Shannon wrote: > > > Gabriel C [mailto:nix.or.die@googlemail.com] > > > > > > > >Hi, > > > > > > > >I got this warning on current git using gcc 4.2.1 : > > > > > > > >... > > > > > > > >drivers/dma/ioatdma.c: In function 'ioat_init_module': > > > >drivers/dma/ioatdma.c:816: warning: the address of > > > >'__this_module' will always evaluate as 'true' > > >... > > > > I'm less interested in why this gives a warning, more interesting is the > > code: > > __unsafe(THIS_MODULE); > > > > @Rusty: > > As far as I understand it, __unsafe() wasn't intended for such a usage, > > and simply not providing an exit function would be the right solution? > > If this is true, and since the MOD_INC_USE_COUNT compat code is long > > gone, shouldn't we be able to completely remove __unsafe() and the > > struct member "unsafe"? > > Yes, indeed, something like this: > == > Remove "unsafe" from module struct > > Adrian Bunk points out that "unsafe" was used to mark modules touched by > the deprecated MOD_INC_USE_COUNT interface, which has long gone. It's > time to remove the member from the module structure, as well. > > If you want a module which can't unload, don't register an exit > function. > > Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 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/
| |