From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:17:55 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 0/3] cpuidle: avoid module usage in non-modular code In-Reply-To: <1450051032-32329-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> References: <1450051032-32329-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> Message-ID: <566F3203.5010009@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 12/14/2015 12:57 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > This series of commits is a part of a larger project to ensure > people don't reference modular support functions in non-modular > code. Overall there was roughly 5k lines of dead code in the > kernel due to this. So far we've fixed several areas, like tty, > x86, net, ... and we continue to work on other areas. > > There are several reasons to not use module support for code that > can never be built as a module, but the big ones are: > > (1) it is easy to accidentally code up unused module_exit and remove code > (2) it can be misleading when reading the source, thinking it can be > modular when the Makefile and/or Kconfig prohibit it > (3) it requires the include of the module.h header file which in turn > includes nearly everything else. > > Fortunately for cpuidle, the changes are largely trivial and change > zero runtime. All the changes here just remap the modular functions > onto the non-modular ones that they would be remapped onto anyway. > > Changes are against linux-next and compile tested on ARM allmodconfig. > I've Cc'd ARM list because all of these are used on ARM, but I'm > thinking these probably can go in via the PM tree. Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano -- Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog