From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757107Ab0LBEK7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Dec 2010 23:10:59 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11964 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756918Ab0LBEK6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Dec 2010 23:10:58 -0500 Message-ID: <4CF71D75.6070908@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:15:49 +0800 From: Cong Wang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100330 Shredder/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH CC: Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [Patch] debugfs: remove module_exit() References: <20101109092449.6284.90481.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20101201013547.GA19390@kroah.com> <4CF5EC28.6060402@redhat.com> <20101201155635.GA29078@suse.de> <4CF70FCE.7060606@redhat.com> <20101202035906.GA10006@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20101202035906.GA10006@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/02/10 11:59, Greg KH wrote: >>> Even if they were (and hint, I don't think they are), they have nothing >>> to do with the patch you created so they don't belong here. The rule is >>> "one patch per logical change" and you didn't even describe that you >>> were removing these lines in the changelog entry, so that's two strikes >>> against removing these lines. >>> >> >> Ok, teach me where DEBUG is used in that file? > > It is. And even if it isn't, it still shouldn't be done in this patch, > which is my main point here. > I see. >>>> Huh? Wasn't it a module before? >>> >>> Yes it was. >>> >>>> I think the problem is tracers use debugfs, it needs to depends on DEBUGFS=y. >>> >>> So if you disable tracing, then you could use debugfs as a module, >>> right? So the patch should not be applied. >>> >> >> No, that CONFIG is a bool, no way to make it as a module. >> Since you insist, I will send a patch to make it as a module. > > {sigh} No, that's not what I ment at all. > Totally confused. :( If you want to make it as a module, then we should not use 'bool' and tracers should depend on =y. If not, then this patch applies.