Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: fix bne2 "gave up waiting for init of modulelibcrc32c"

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > 
> > 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.

Ok. So if we don't expect to ever pass the full load_info struct down to 
the arch code, and we can keep it entirely internal to module.c, then 
"struct load_info" is fine by me.

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

Gaah. "Just the fixes" is definitely the prudent thing to do. At the same 
time, I've now so deeply bought into the whole cleanup thing too, that I 
want to argue that the cleanup might make it easier to handle any locking 
problems if we find them.

But I suspect that is just myself trying to fool/argue my smarter half 
into taking it all.

So you can probably push me either way.

			Linus
--
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/