From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] param: use ops in struct kernel_param, rather than get and set fns directly Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:18:12 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20091022142337.EC4A85362F@mx1.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Ville Syrjala , Dmitry Torokhov , Alessandro Rubini , Michal Januszewski , Trond Myklebust , "J. Bruce Fields" , Neil Brown , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Rusty Russell Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091022142337.EC4A85362F@mx1.suse.de> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: At Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:51:28 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > This is more kernel-ish, saves some space, and also allows us to > expand the ops without breaking all the callers who are happy for the > new members to be NULL. > > The few places which defined their own param types are changed to the > new scheme. > > Since we're touching them anyway, we change get and set to take a > const struct kernel_param (which they were, and will be again). > > To reduce churn, module_param_call creates the ops struct so the callers > don't have to change (and casts the functions to reduce warnings). > The modern version which takes an ops struct is called module_param_cb. This is nice, as it also reduces the size of struct kernel_param, so each parameter uses less footprint (who cares, though?) :) But, just wondering whether we still need to export get/set functions. They can be called from ops now, so if any, it can be defined even as an inlinefunction or a macro. thanks, Takashi