Re: [PATCH][RFC] disable built-in modules V2

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:23:32 +0200 Magnus Damm wrote:

| On Apr 7, 2005 4:23 AM, Roland Dreier <roland@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| >  > > -#define module_init(x) __initcall(x);
| >  > > +#define module_init(x) __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x);
| >  >
| >  > It would be better if there is brackets around them... like
| >  >
| >  > #define module_init(x) { __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x); }
| >  >
| >  > then we know it wont break some code like
| >  >
| >  > if (..)
| >  >  module_init(x);
| > 
| > This is all completely academic, since module_init() is a declaration
| > that won't be inside any code, but in general it's better still to use
| > the do { } while (0) idiom like
| > 
| > #define module_init(x) do { __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x); } while (0)
| > 
| > so it won't break code like
| > 
| >         if (..)
| >                 module_init(x);
| >         else
| >                 something_else();
| > 
| > (Yes, that code is nonsense but if you're going to nitpick, go all the way...)
| 
| Right. =)
| Anyway, besides nitpicking, is there any reason not to include this
| code? Or is the added feature considered plain bloat? Yes, the kernel
| will become a bit larger, but all the data added by this patch will go
| into the init section.

Looks like a good idea to me.

---
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/