lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: SET_MODULE_OWNER?
Date
In message <3E923390.9010206@pobox.com> you write:
> > 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.

Crap. Since hch removed the other module ops, if your module does its
own refcount THAT won't compile in 2.5.

> > 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.

This is complete crap. It's an obfuscation macro, with no backwards
compatibility capabilities as currently implemented.

Christoph went through and substituted try_inc_mod_count to
try_module_get, for no gain, and broke backwards compatibility.

Unlike that, substituting dev->owner = THIS_MODULE; has no backwards
compatibility loss, and it removes a confusing and pointless macro
which *never* had a point.

Unless you can come up with a real *reason*, I'll move it back under
"deprecated" and start substituting.

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
-
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 13:34    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans