lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: to CONFIG_KMOD or not to CONFIG_KMOD
    Date
    On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:27:14 +0000 (GMT), 
    Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.COM> wrote:
    >What is the official status on the situations like:
    >
    >check some resource;
    >if (resource == NULL) {
    > char buf[32];
    > sprintf(buffer, "foo-bar-XYZ");
    > request_module(buffer);
    > if (resource is still NULL)
    > return -ENODEV; /* or whatever appropriate */
    >}
    >
    >The #ifdef CONFIG_KMODE around this type of code can be omitted (because
    >request_module() will be just noop) e.g. as is done in phone_open() (the
    >new Linux Telephony thingy) or it can be left for performance when any CPU
    >cycle is important e.g. as in fs/exec.c:search_binary_handler()
    >
    >Does everyone agree with such state of things or do you think one should
    >go through the whole source and clean it up removing all #ifdef
    >CONFIG_KMOD as they are strictly speaking superfluous?

    I would like to see all the #ifdef removed. With the current code,
    switching CONFIG_KMOD on or off recompiles far too much of the kernel.


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.020 / U:4.816 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site