Re: RFC: modules and 2.5

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com>]

Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote:
> 
> >
> > A couple things that would be nice for 2.5 is
> > - let MOD_INC_USE_COUNT work even when module is built into kernel, and
> > - let THIS_MODULE exist and be valid even when module is built into
> > kernel
> >
> > This introduces bloat into the static kernel for modules which do not
> > take advantage of this, so perhaps we can make this new behavior
> > conditional on CONFIG_xxx option.  Individual drivers which make use of
> > the behavior can do something like
> >
> >       dep_tristate 'my driver' CONFIG_MYDRIVER $CONFIG_PCI
> >       if [ "$CONFIG_MYDRIVER" != "n" -a \
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >            "$CONFIG_STATIC_MODULES" != "y" ]; then
> >          define_bool CONFIG_STATIC_MODULES y
> >       fi
> 
> Hmmm, shouldn't it be written in CML2 if it is for 2.5 ?

no comment


> For 2.4 the marked condition ( != n on a variable defined by dep_*)
> probably would break xconfig. Don't suggest such solutions...

why is != n on a variable defined by dep_xx bad?
That doesn't make sense.

	Jeff


-- 
Jeff Garzik      | "I respect faith, but doubt is
Building 1024    |  what gives you an education."
MandrakeSoft     |           -- Wilson Mizner