From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753846Ab0LABgI (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:36:08 -0500 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:53376 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753482Ab0LABgG (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:36:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:35:47 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Amerigo Wang Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [Patch] debugfs: remove module_exit() Message-ID: <20101201013547.GA19390@kroah.com> References: <20101109092449.6284.90481.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101109092449.6284.90481.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:19:58AM -0500, Amerigo Wang wrote: > debugfs can't be a module, so module_exit() is meaningless > for it. > > Signed-off-by: WANG Cong > > --- > diff --git a/fs/debugfs/inode.c b/fs/debugfs/inode.c > index 37a8ca7..d38c88f 100644 > --- a/fs/debugfs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/debugfs/inode.c > @@ -13,9 +13,6 @@ > * > */ > > -/* uncomment to get debug messages from the debug filesystem, ah the irony. */ > -/* #define DEBUG */ Why did you remove these lines? They don't pertain to this patch. > - > #include > #include > #include > @@ -540,17 +537,5 @@ static int __init debugfs_init(void) > > return retval; > } > - > -static void __exit debugfs_exit(void) > -{ > - debugfs_registered = false; > - > - simple_release_fs(&debugfs_mount, &debugfs_mount_count); > - unregister_filesystem(&debug_fs_type); > - kobject_put(debug_kobj); > -} When the code is built into the kernel, the __exit function should go away, so this isn't costing us any extra memory, right? And debugfs used to be able to be built as a module, perhaps it will be in the future? I don't think this patch is really needed. thanks, greg k-h