Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Jun 2010 18:55:00 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: fix bne2 "gave up waiting for init of module libcrc32c" |
| |
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > At least call it "struct module_load_info". But yes, I do agree that the > > "load" part is important. > > Looking at the arch code, it has the advantage that it's self-contained. > They've been pleasantly undemanding from the core over the years; I think > archs doing tricky things with elf prefer to parse the object themselves > anyway. And I'm not sure they want to revisit it, either. > > So I don't think we'd win much from changing them. I'm wrong later, I'll > prepend "module_" to the struct name as an internal change then hit them > all.
Ok. So if we don't expect to ever pass the full load_info struct down to the arch code, and we can keep it entirely internal to module.c, then "struct load_info" is fine by me.
> If so, do you want just the fixes or the whole refactoring too, while > it's nice and fresh?
Gaah. "Just the fixes" is definitely the prudent thing to do. At the same time, I've now so deeply bought into the whole cleanup thing too, that I want to argue that the cleanup might make it easier to handle any locking problems if we find them.
But I suspect that is just myself trying to fool/argue my smarter half into taking it all.
So you can probably push me either way.
Linus
| |