Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:02:35 +0200 (CEST) | From | Chipzz <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.3.18ac5 |
| |
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Richard Guenther wrote:
> From: Richard Guenther <zxmpm11@student.uni-tuebingen.de> > Subject: Re: Linux 2.3.18ac5 > > On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > Richard Guenther wrote: > > > Caveats: you dont have control over MODULE_NAME - it gets > > > created out of the source file name. > > > > That's not very friendly... instead of messing with the kernel compile > > flags, why not do this: > > > > #ifndef MODULE_NAME > > #define MODULE_NAME __FILE__ > > #endif > > Because MODULE_NAME then gets foobar.c !? which is not a > usable/suitable prefix either? (The Makefile would create > foobar_ as prefix) > Or because you have to do it _before_ the #include of the > module.h header, which is messy and error-prone? > Hey, I really did think before I started modifying the > makefile. And - the filename is not such a bad choice either > in most cases. And the biggest advantage is that it works > without changing any driver source. > > Richard.
The solution seems very obvious: let's say you change the makefile to use _MODULE_NAME as the define, then do:
#ifndef MODULE_NAME #define MODULE_NAME _MODULE_NAME #endif
That way, you can give other names to your module too if the filename isn't quite suitable.
Chipzz AKA Jan Van Buggenhout
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNIX isn't dead - It just smells funny Xp@Ace.ULYSSIS.Student.KULeuven.Ac.Be --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 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/
| |