[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH][RFC] new module interface
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:02:36 +0200 (CEST)
Roman Zippel <> wrote:

> The patch below is for 2.4 but it's easily ported to 2.5, beside of this I
> think the core is stable and will allow a more flexible module handling
> in the future. After updating to 2.5 and updating some more archs I will
> submit the patch officially, so any feedback now would be very welcome.
> (The patch requires no new modutils, although a new version could avoid
> some workarounds, but that can wait.)

Hi Roman!

Firstly, I give up: what kernel is this patch against? It's
hard to read a patch this big which doesn't apply to any kernel I can find 8(

> .start = start_affs_fs,
> .stop = stop_affs_fs,
> .exit = exit_affs_fs,
> .usecount = usecount_affs_fs,

Interesting approach. Splitting init and start and stop and exit is
normal, but encapsulating the usecount is different. I made start
and exit return void, though.

Hmmm... you sidestepped the "rmmod -f" problem, by running module->start()
again if module->exit() fails. I decided against this because module
authors have to make sure this works.

I chose the more standard "INIT(init, start)" & "EXIT(stop, exit)" which
makes it easier to drop the exit part if it's built-in.

My favorite part is including the builtin-modules. I assume this means
that "request_module("foo")" returns success if CONFIG_DRIVER_FOO=y now?

Sorry I've been slack in posting my patch: will do tonight I promise 8)

there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too
many doers quoting their contemporaries. -- Larry McVoy
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.081 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site