From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Bolle Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio: Split virqfd into a separate module for vfio bus drivers Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 21:31:51 +0100 Message-ID: <1426797111.23529.29.camel@x220> References: <20150318172352.18444.97999.stgit@gimli.home> <1426793571.23529.14.camel@x220> <1426795931.3643.455.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, b.reynal@virtualopensystems.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eric.auger@linaro.org To: Alex Williamson Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1426795931.3643.455.camel@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 14:12 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > Well, at some point when I was doing vfio it seemed like a good idea and > I copied it from another driver. For some time now I have this idea that there's a Linux kernel module template somewhere that uses defines like the ones you're using. That all started when I noticed drivers defining DRIVER_LICENSE. (I really like the name of that define.) Because every driver defining it ends up using it only once. > Is it more valuable to remove a few lines of source code with no net > effect on the resulting output? We should discuss this from the opposite direction: why is this patch adding a few lines with no obvious benefit? > Besides, look at how much more aesthetically pleasing the above is > versus this: > > MODULE_VERSION("0.1"); > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); > MODULE_AUTHOR("Alex Williamson "); > MODULE_DESCRIPTION("IRQFD support for VFIO bus drivers"); > > ;) I don't do smileys. Perhaps that's why I never know what to think when someone uses them. Anyhow, sure, my comment is extremely trivial, but I do think I should raise this point just once. Because, well, ... because! Paul Bolle