lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Is an alternative module interface needed/possible?
Grr, I hate this. I just typed a long reply to your posting, and
wanted to finish it with a reminder that the issue is more general
than just modules, so that we shouldn't look at modules yet. Then
I realized of course that everything above was about modules :-(

I don't think we'll make much progress if we keep on mixing issues
of interface correctness, current module constraints, and possible
module interface changes, all that with performance considerations
and minimum invasive migration plans thrown in. So I'd suggest the
following sequence:

1) do we agree that the current registration/deregistration
interfaces are potential hazards for their users, be they
modules or not ?
2) one we agree with this, we can look for mechanisms that
solve this, again for general users, which may or may not
be modules
3) last but not least, we can look at what this means for
modules (and that's where beautiful tools like
"module_put_return" (thanks !), or also ideas about
module_exit redesign have their place)
4) "the root of all evil ...". Okay, and now to which level
of hell would all this shoot our performance ? (And back
we go to step 2.)

- Werner

--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net /
/_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.082 / U:37.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site