On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > So it's theoretically possible to code up a get_module_symbol_byaddr()
> > which does the converse, then for chrdev_open() et al to use that on
> > whatever method of the fops is expected to be present in every case.
>
> Eww... I would rather avoid requiring fields that would be "present in
> every case"... And I suspect that file_operations doesn't have such a
> field, anyway. <checking> Yup.
That's my point - the 'bloat' is nicer than this alternative :)
> > While we're at it - can we get rid of MOD_INC_USE_COUNT and
> > __MOD_INC_USE_COUNT altogether to force people to be aware of the need for
> > try_inc_mod_count and checking its return value? First thing in 2.5 along
> > with removing sleep_on() ?
>
> Yes. Moreover, I hope that we can effectively get rid of them before 2.5.
> Which is one of the reasons why I don't like keeping them all over the
> place, especially if it involves schedule()-based solutions.
I meant remove the definition, not just most of the uses - at least of
__MOD_INC_USE_COUNT, and force people to use try_inc_mod_count(),
hopefully checking the return code appropriately.
-- dwmw2- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 21:00:09 EST