Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Dec 2010 19:59:06 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [Patch] debugfs: remove module_exit() |
| |
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:17:34AM +0800, Cong Wang wrote: > On 12/01/10 23:56, Greg KH wrote: > >On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 02:33:12PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote: > >>On 12/01/10 09:35, Greg KH wrote: > >>>On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:19:58AM -0500, Amerigo Wang wrote: > >>>>debugfs can't be a module, so module_exit() is meaningless > >>>>for it. > >>>> > >>>>Signed-off-by: WANG Cong<amwang@redhat.com> > >>>> > >>>>--- > >>>>diff --git a/fs/debugfs/inode.c b/fs/debugfs/inode.c > >>>>index 37a8ca7..d38c88f 100644 > >>>>--- a/fs/debugfs/inode.c > >>>>+++ b/fs/debugfs/inode.c > >>>>@@ -13,9 +13,6 @@ > >>>> * > >>>> */ > >>>> > >>>>-/* uncomment to get debug messages from the debug filesystem, ah the irony. */ > >>>>-/* #define DEBUG */ > >>> > >>>Why did you remove these lines? They don't pertain to this patch. > >> > >>These lines are obsolete. > > > >Even if they were (and hint, I don't think they are), they have nothing > >to do with the patch you created so they don't belong here. The rule is > >"one patch per logical change" and you didn't even describe that you > >were removing these lines in the changelog entry, so that's two strikes > >against removing these lines. > > > > Ok, teach me where DEBUG is used in that file?
It is. And even if it isn't, it still shouldn't be done in this patch, which is my main point here.
> >>>>- > >>>> #include<linux/module.h> > >>>> #include<linux/fs.h> > >>>> #include<linux/mount.h> > >>>>@@ -540,17 +537,5 @@ static int __init debugfs_init(void) > >>>> > >>>> return retval; > >>>> } > >>>>- > >>>>-static void __exit debugfs_exit(void) > >>>>-{ > >>>>- debugfs_registered = false; > >>>>- > >>>>- simple_release_fs(&debugfs_mount,&debugfs_mount_count); > >>>>- unregister_filesystem(&debug_fs_type); > >>>>- kobject_put(debug_kobj); > >>>>-} > >>> > >>>When the code is built into the kernel, the __exit function should go > >>>away, so this isn't costing us any extra memory, right? > >> > >> > >>Perhaps, but this can still reduce the vmlinux size, right? > > > >Which really doesn't matter, right? How much is it reduced? > > > >>>And debugfs used to be able to be built as a module, perhaps it will be > >>>in the future? I don't think this patch is really needed. > >>> > >> > >>Huh? Wasn't it a module before? > > > >Yes it was. > > > >>I think the problem is tracers use debugfs, it needs to depends on DEBUGFS=y. > > > >So if you disable tracing, then you could use debugfs as a module, > >right? So the patch should not be applied. > > > > No, that CONFIG is a bool, no way to make it as a module. > Since you insist, I will send a patch to make it as a module.
{sigh} No, that's not what I ment at all.
greg k-h
| |