[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: SET_MODULE_OWNER?
    In message <> 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.

    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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.019 / U:26.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site