Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: Add module_subinit{_noexit} and module_subeixt helper macros

David Sterba
2024-07-26T22:45:53Z

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 11:09:02AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 01:58:00PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Yeah, that's my reaction as well. This only saves 50 lines of code in
> > ext4, and that includes unrelated changes such as getting rid of "int
> > i" and putting the declaration into the for loop --- "for (int i =
> > ..."). Sure, that saves two lines of code, but yay?
> >
> > If the ordering how the functions gets called is based on the magic
> > ordering in the Makefile, I'm not sure this actually makes the code
> > clearer, more robust, and easier to maintain for the long term.
>
> So you two object to kernel initcalls for the same reason and would
> rather go back to calling everything explicitly?

No and not my call to do it for the kernel. Somebody probably had a
reason use the initcalls, there are probably practical reasons for that.
Quick grep shows there are thousands of initcalls scattered over the
whole code base, that does ask for some tricks because updating a single
file with explicit calls would be a nightmare. Unlike for a subsystem
inside one directory, like a filesystem.