[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Is an alternative module interface needed/possible?

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Werner Almesberger wrote:

> 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.)

Basically I can agree with this, although I'd like to avoid that we
iterate too much over these steps, as it would too easily divert the
discussion to other things, so I'd rather take smaller steps and keep the
scope a bit broader.
Another point is the perfomance, which is not that important right now.
I'm more interested in the general complexity, it's simply easier to
optimize a simple design than a very complex design.

bye, Roman

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 13:33    [W:0.073 / U:3.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site