Re: SET_MODULE_OWNER?

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

In message <3E93AA3D.4050104@pobox.com> you write:
> 
> looks ok to me

After months of intense negotiation, we have... a comment. 8)

Thanks Jeff.

Linus, please apply.
Rusty.

diff -urpN --exclude TAGS -X /home/rusty/devel/kernel/kernel-patches/current-dontdiff --minimal linux-2.5.67-bk1/include/linux/module.h working-2.5.67-bk1-set-owner/include/linux/module.h
--- linux-2.5.67-bk1/include/linux/module.h	2003-04-08 11:15:01.000000000 +1000
+++ working-2.5.67-bk1-set-owner/include/linux/module.h	2003-04-09 15:15:47.000000000 +1000
@@ -408,6 +408,12 @@ __attribute__((section(".gnu.linkonce.th
 #endif /* MODULE */
 
 #define symbol_request(x) try_then_request_module(symbol_get(x), "symbol:" #x)
+
+/* If you want backwards compat: some structs didn't have owner fields once */
+/* Think of SET_MODULE_OWNER like an IBM mainframe: leave it in a dark 
+   corner for years, don't break it, but don't ever upgrade it either :) 
+   If there is something newer and sexier than the mainframe, it's ok to 
+   use that instead.  The mainframe won't feel lonely. -- Jeff Garzik */
 #define SET_MODULE_OWNER(dev) ((dev)->owner = THIS_MODULE)
 
 /* BELOW HERE ALL THESE ARE OBSOLETE AND WILL VANISH */
--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.