From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEE8917A580; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:09:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722017352; cv=none; b=cYEjYbJZOHsy7BDbQ0JHfSXVOea2pqBnUaRJTivQ/iPXN+CGL6HXsjxxi7uyBzbXvzHEUOpltCsIvXxYIWr+/tmuwCW/myhLTyWOaHUOG5fVY3gG4+Z/pRYZFsQ43dv63q+EvSfGfWm79jUW2/Bd99zJ9YYG14x6DexS/Ze1qmI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722017352; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QwKVfIJx6b6w9eytozal7rkLHjdJGPTRw1tI+tPnJqI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=PFb7021O/AvY6lrOp3UjunxQ1ABWd6IQAMhj20+TLe3DWWCfSTyFi2ncvIyUFl+YfUsWyihtkpIDtD1zv8ib2bA/J4N2txMPlarhFroOi+DeldLMWdK67Svrs16UJuNAZ3y+4JOzwtXN6mcEosetZXfNGdrMumLPI3L8vIwpBwc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=oArlGx+H; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="oArlGx+H" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=5Y+bBdbxxKC2hf51b7J1S8qThB2b/5XgdfKw1OYTUmk=; b=oArlGx+Huj22K57mLVmHcbr0Xl MiQWzuEi4Bl7fRZsVt+B9ZKIiRlk60bv4A1VwbYD2R+Rij6yZOAmguXQjSY/MHCs+c5GLg+B3THb3 3L32kWuUMtGuW5OmDt0vugl+4K77MJTbYl21N3h8WQHlnLaDt19jUm/cZTwsI/giT5Mdk2ZVaQSEi dAPaioHkwR/mfs6CveVJ30rbYPtXcU+9XwlzNWTKLLmrSaqNALfDlg5Bho5b/WSTNBGtSdnkr8Fxd Kg9ecy0O4QzGYhFP4PuJgMaBPF/t2ijbsQYxLefX5IusHSMB6Z92ApoMggnQ+t2OmX4XcWnwFI/4X MPHP0EfA==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sXPNG-00000004cOz-4BYF; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:09:02 +0000 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:09:02 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Theodore Ts'o Cc: David Sterba , Christoph Hellwig , Youling Tang , kreijack@inwind.it, Arnd Bergmann , Luis Chamberlain , Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , David Sterba , Andreas Dilger , Jaegeuk Kim , Chao Yu , Linux-Arch , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Youling Tang Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: Add module_subinit{_noexit} and module_subeixt helper macros Message-ID: References: <895360e3-97bb-4188-a91d-eaca3302bd43@linux.dev> <61beb54b-399b-442d-bfdb-bad23cefa586@app.fastmail.com> <68584887-3dec-4ce5-8892-86af50651c41@libero.it> <91bfea9b-ad7e-4f35-a2c1-8cd41499b0c0@linux.dev> <20240726152237.GH17473@twin.jikos.cz> <20240726175800.GC131596@mit.edu> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240726175800.GC131596@mit.edu> X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html 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?