lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-04 04:03    [W:2.439 / U:1.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site