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 4C8D615A87C; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:57:44 +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=1722279465; cv=none; b=V8b3s5GhYug9n1U5LJ2pOovYJyICThH3y4ft3MIRWg3VX/VCBv4qU8RgtguukBUF9KvB1aeEmPSsyQXem3KUfSI71M2FAsDpuMlRTKXfMHUH7F1XUkk5lW4VUll663xtnMVXSiCyvkiy90X1vsTzBej4zq1d2g31kqXuGxWzcBY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722279465; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DH6q17wJwE/X5Qp0zBeWBEB/NztwTzM0wLQxTlpxGTU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=tyqRHkVa9oaJDIs2UZIVdA/uNwb3dtWpoZEQ0kTkiyBuLpiV7ED4W9qC+7fEIQSpjvIAq/ub2C6fK7mT2NNVb/2vuVUHJ8oa+CrYJc9fFh6UZI/WWcbvXDE4L4mgJqA4WJ9NqdrmHmaWvFhEpSSRV5iMax9jAB7qi1VKn5wfeUg= 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=ej0EAM7w; 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="ej0EAM7w" 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=bI98vnr4STfnlezdFEzg4Ja3ISFYbT1ZwioxbeX8MKA=; b=ej0EAM7w2vW2zx7IVBK5UWb6kj wN1ljrPR09MnAd97P+fTuB/kR5lUi1RXb/2QVebNH54cfJkcVdn1DRLq3wIEF0L6HoO11Wpaq31KH b3HS8xuAqVh03lWz/yE/u/Ow4kdwDfTmmKIn1lYNQAiHIsSLGMaD6CF3yGFFxC5Vu9WtjGlQ60UOy Q4BgloNHbkwvChMYnO+355i5pha1GxRbPUdTrd6mvYaBUccsoS/rnsx/t69CMPNmh+bDgQ7LKqIkf Sjd3SluVefNGGxsPirSouasiVgrHnm6V+d9KUEa831qxQ9pkwr7Uw7PFflXMznzSAxHEHWl7Kshw0 rtNYHKgA==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sYVYt-0000000CPTa-3gro; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:57:35 +0000 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:57:35 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Youling Tang , Christoph Hellwig , David Sterba , Arnd Bergmann , kreijack@inwind.it, 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: <68584887-3dec-4ce5-8892-86af50651c41@libero.it> <91bfea9b-ad7e-4f35-a2c1-8cd41499b0c0@linux.dev> <20240726152237.GH17473@twin.jikos.cz> <20240726175800.GC131596@mit.edu> <20240727145232.GA377174@mit.edu> <23862652-a702-4a5d-b804-db9ee9f6f539@linux.dev> <20240729024412.GD377174@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: <20240729024412.GD377174@mit.edu> X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 10:44:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > Personally, I prefer the implementation of method two. > > But there's also method zero --- keep things the way they are, and > don't try to add a new astraction. > > Advantage: > > -- Code has worked for decades, so it is very well tested > -- Very easy to understand and maintain > > Disadvantage > > --- A few extra lines of C code. > > which we need to weigh against the other choices. I think option zero is the right option for you and David and anyone scared of link order issues. But I know for XFS or the nvme code having multiple initcalls per module would be extremely helpfu. I don't really want to drag Youling into implementing something he is not behind, but I plan to try that out myself once I find a little time.