Re: [PATCH][RFC] new module interface

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:02:36 +0200 (CEST)
Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:

> The patch below is for 2.4 but it's easily ported to 2.5, beside of this I
> think the core is stable and will allow a more flexible module handling
> in the future. After updating to 2.5 and updating some more archs I will
> submit the patch officially, so any feedback now would be very welcome.
> (The patch requires no new modutils, although a new version could avoid
> some workarounds, but that can wait.)

Hi Roman!

	Firstly, I give up: what kernel is this patch against?  It's
hard to read a patch this big which doesn't apply to any kernel I can find 8(

> DEFINE_MODULE
> 	.start =	start_affs_fs,
> 	.stop =		stop_affs_fs,
> 	.exit =		exit_affs_fs,
> 	.usecount =	usecount_affs_fs,
> DEFINE_MODULE_END

Interesting approach.  Splitting init and start and stop and exit is
normal, but encapsulating the usecount is different.  I made start
and exit return void, though.

Hmmm... you sidestepped the "rmmod -f" problem, by running module->start()
again if module->exit() fails.  I decided against this because module
authors have to make sure this works.

I chose the more standard "INIT(init, start)" & "EXIT(stop, exit)" which
makes it easier to drop the exit part if it's built-in.

My favorite part is including the builtin-modules.  I assume this means
that "request_module("foo")" returns success if CONFIG_DRIVER_FOO=y now?

Sorry I've been slack in posting my patch: will do tonight I promise 8)

Cheers!
Rusty.
-- 
   there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too
   many doers quoting their contemporaries.  -- Larry McVoy