lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] module: fix bne2 "gave up waiting for init of module libcrc32c"
Date
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 01:54:19 am Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >
> > However, you're right that it has potential. I'll rename module_info to
> > load_info if you don't mind tho: contains more semantic punch IMHO.
>
> Umm. One problem is that you will almost certainly eventually want to
> expose that to the architecture "fixup" routines (ie things like
> module_frob_arch_sections(), arch_mod_section_prepend()), and at that
> point "load_info" is a horribly bad structure name, since it would show
> up in <linux/module.h> and thus be exported all over.
>
> At least call it "struct module_load_info". But yes, I do agree that the
> "load" part is important.

Looking at the arch code, it has the advantage that it's self-contained.
They've been pleasantly undemanding from the core over the years; I think
archs doing tricky things with elf prefer to parse the object themselves
anyway. And I'm not sure they want to revisit it, either.

So I don't think we'd win much from changing them. I'm wrong later, I'll
prepend "module_" to the struct name as an internal change then hit them
all.

> I looked at that particularly when doing that whole
>
> mod = setup_module_info(&info);
> if (IS_ERR(mod)) {
> err = PTR_ERR(mod);
> goto free_hdr;
> }
>
> thing, because that made "mod" have _three_ totally different values
> (error, before, after) when jumping out to the failure paths.

Yep, it now is back to sanity. Let's see if today's linux-next is
happy.

If so, do you want just the fixes or the whole refactoring too, while
it's nice and fresh?

Thanks!
Rusty.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-04 03:05    [W:0.133 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site