[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: SET_MODULE_OWNER?
    Rusty Russell wrote:
    > In message <> you write:
    >>Rusty Russell wrote:
    >>>I thought it was completely useless, hence deprecated.
    >>>Anyone have any reason to defend it?
    >>It's used to allow source compatibility with all kernels, old or new.
    >>Thus it is in active use, and should not be removed.
    > Inside individual drivers, or a set of compat macros, it makes sense.
    > But as a general module.h primitive it doesn't.
    > Imagine a structure adds an owner field in 2.5. This macro doesn't
    > help you, you need a specific compat macro for that struct.

    no, SET_MODULE_OWNER is quite intentionally independent of the struct.
    It only requires a consisnent naming in the source, between structures
    that may use the macro.

    That's a feature.

    > ie. AFAICT it only buys you 2.2 compatibility, and even then only if
    > you #define it at the top of your driver.

    no, farther back than that, to infinity and beyond :) The idea of the
    macro is that on earlier kernels, it is simply a no-op, and module
    refcounting is handled by other means.

    > I still don't understand: please demonstrate a use in existing source.

    demonstrate? grep for it. It's used quite a bit. Removal of
    SET_MODULE_OWNER looks to me to be pointless churn for negative gain.
    If if you wish to pointedly ignore the old-source compatibility angle,
    it is a nice convenience macro.


    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 13:34    [W:0.022 / U:37.396 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site