[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zo-XMrK6luarjfqZ@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 01:26:26 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Youling Tang <youling.tang@...ux.dev>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, tytso@....edu,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
linux-modules@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add {init, exit}_sequence_fs() helper function
Can we please stop this boilerplate code an instead our __init/__exit
sections to supper multiple entires per module. This should be mostly
trivial, except that we'd probably want a single macro that has the
init and exit calls so that the order in the section is the same and
the unroll on failure can walk back form the given offset. e.g.
something like:
module_subinit(foo_bar_init, foo_bar_exit);
module_subinit(foo_bar2_init, foo_bar2_exit);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists