[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b58e6f36-9a13-488a-85d2-913dd758f89b@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:44:14 +0800
From: Youling Tang <youling.tang@...ux.dev>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
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
Hi, Christoph
On 11/07/2024 16:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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);
>
>
Thanks for your suggestion, I re-implemented it using section mode,
and the new patch set [1] has been sent.
[1]:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240723083239.41533-1-youling.tang@linux.dev/T/#md81aaefe0c1fef70a0592d1580cbbb10ec9989b0
Thanks,
Youling.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists