Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 6 Nov 2000 06:39:34 +0000 (GMT) | From | David Woodhouse <> | Subject | Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page] |
| |
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 00:54:51 +0000 (GMT), > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote: > >On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Keith Owens wrote: > > > >> I'm not sure why you think this can be used for module persistent > >> storage. If a module calls inter_module_register() on load, it should > >> call inter_module_unregister() on unload. All the registered data > >> points into the loaded module, remove the module and the storage > >> disappears as well. > > > >You can kmalloc() both the im_name and userdata arguments to > >inter_module_register and you ought to be able to pass NULL as the owner. > > Ughh! That is definitely abusing the inter_module functions. If we > need persistent module storage then we should add a clean interface to > do it instead of using kmalloc and overloading inter_module_xxx.
Why? It's got to get kmalloc'd anyway, and code reuse is _good_. Experiment with different names for inter_module_xxx until you feel happier :)
> What do people think, do we need module persistent storage?
The primary reason that I've often lamented its removal is for auto-loaded sound drivers to store their mixer level on unload, in order to reset to the same values upon being reloaded.
> This will probably be a 2.5 change but I want to get an idea of the > requirements before coding anything.
Strictly speaking, all the inter_module_xxx stuff should probably wait for 2.5.
-- dwmw2
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |