lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: getting rid of inter_module_xx
From
Date
On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 17:27 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sad, 2004-10-23 at 10:44, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > not at all. Everything else in the kernel is compile-time depencies.
> > Just make the agp backend module mandatory if CONFIG_AGP is set, you'll
> > lose tons of complexity at a minimum amount of used memory, and as an
> > added benefit look like the rest of the kernel.
>
> Thats completely stupid
>
> CONFIG_AGP enables the building of AGP modules, it does not disable the
> ability to run that kernel on non AGP setups, or to use non AGP video
> cards.
>
> The relationship is dynamic and you'd need to fix the various drivers
> that support both PCI and AGP mode by compiling them twice so you can
> load them with or without agp support.
>
> Yuck yuck yuck. It would instead be much saner to fix the module loader
> to support weak symbols.

Well, we do support weak symbols, and we also support dynamic symbol
resolution using symbol_get (or symbol_request which probes for the
module if CONFIG_KMOD) and symbol_put.

It's just the inter_module* mechanism which I dislike.
Rusty.
--
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman

-
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 14:08    [W:0.036 / U:1.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site