Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:26:47 -0700 | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Subject | Re: Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ? |
| |
Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 02:15:50PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> Sam Ravnborg wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 01:11:46PM +0200, devzero@web.de wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> some time ago i spotted that around 20% of the Linux modules lacking a MODULE_DESCRIPTION field. ( http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10770 ) >>>> >>>> I think it`s not a practicable approach to get this fixed by some single person digging trough all the modules. >>>> If itŽs fixed for a kernel release, one year later there would be another bunch of new modules lacking the description field again. >>>> >>>> What about a build-time or run-time warning for missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION ? (as it exists for MODULE_LICENSE in modpost.c) >>> >>> You mean something like the following untested patch? >>> If it works what is the output for an allmodconfig build? >>> >>> Sam >>> >>> diff --git a/scripts/mod/modpost.c b/scripts/mod/modpost.c >>> index 8cc7061..5317d6f 100644 >>> --- a/scripts/mod/modpost.c >>> +++ b/scripts/mod/modpost.c >>> @@ -1553,6 +1553,7 @@ static void read_symbols(char *modname) >>> const char *symname; >>> char *version; >>> char *license; >>> + char *description; >>> struct module *mod; >>> struct elf_info info = { }; >>> Elf_Sym *sym; >>> @@ -1584,6 +1585,11 @@ static void read_symbols(char *modname) >>> license = get_next_modinfo(info.modinfo, info.modinfo_len, >>> "license", license); >>> } >>> + description = get_modinfo(info.modinfo, info.modinfo_len, "description"); >>> + if (info.modinfo && !description && !is_vmlinux(modname)) >>> + warn("modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in %s\n" >>> + "see include/linux/module.h for " >>> + "more information\n", modname); >>> >>> for (sym = info.symtab_start; sym < info.symtab_stop; sym++) { >>> symname = info.strtab + sym->st_name; >>> -- >> on x86_64 allmodconfig (2.6.30-rc2), here are the "missing"s that are reported: >> >> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs_example_explicit.o >> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs_example_macros.o >> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.o > ... > We need to bring that list down before we apply the patch. > Is it worth it?
I see 424 modules without MODULE_DESCRIPTION (in the list above) and 3127 .c files that contain "MODULE_DESCRIPTION".
To me it's a Nice to have but not Required. (i.e., not worth it IMO)
-- ~Randy -- 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/
| |