From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 6000A180A69 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:54:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722092099; cv=none; b=rbgGsGUukRihyYRNErs63pdZS6SvKEui95EdTwnvnj5M0o1wyDhfQyFEGO8GglUKjVMvejouSREmysyhxH/qBjLDul0Egdo+FmMLSOa+yHT8IM+XupIao0lVsptiDNaldiNScv9GikC2uc20BpN6swN8ZNLSykw40fMVwufCgR8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722092099; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yiWuP8Onb+fyKehtZA9+3qlxXA9OLQ0daLGmt8gHCrY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FeF7YLUARG+/nZqkQi5ywlycEJN8Gr9Sitd6av1Fl2lgyozW8c8lZFBMo4J4ro+1V2cYkFAP6C3DmCFDsWzeWrn2Z1rPYQP3ISS+sSdIFGXhji1MmkhD3ZWGYXtKZQTbkGKy0kiZvZwXNee6F8J6s+umNpeJPPjHBmqj3Tddwp4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=W3SqZwj6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="W3SqZwj6" Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-173-48-113-198.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.113.198]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 46REqWUW017051 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 27 Jul 2024 10:52:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1722091958; bh=qLhE8zhbnsrLQesDE5s8eN6bXS32QqwKbPnsHmPpjPs=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=W3SqZwj6xO4JInZDIxy44/G9zuWEAwQBDT8wo9oAislq4E8B456lR87n3bSU9fcTu iY0V57/ee8ng08hyb4Csnb2aESguN8FAilgp5bT1uF+l0t0N6l5WFjifYiECO6bUDd t5BTjYHDKkOovBhtRTqwkR8rL7aX++aINeXzjuXf7n9rHduxZMGTecM7BxEExtLP51 RiF9Pepy9ILquFzBv7I6nIGYyVPO16Y/OWE3V35dTFL7MdnWaaeUIgp9Z79JAPI2dj iZEP64jTBjnKooEX1ccphhGHyHOYzUv04vJ6/ie7IN7IddG/d/a9WC4B2NrMWDyWKL An8LLBeP0m5Aw== Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 8A69515C0251; Sat, 27 Jul 2024 10:52:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 10:52:32 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: David Sterba , 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: <20240727145232.GA377174@mit.edu> References: <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-modules@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: 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? I don't oject to kernel initcalls which don't have any interdependencies and where ordering doesn't matter. - Ted