linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Factor out common MODULE_INFO content from module*.h files.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070520201312.GA25339@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Sun, 20 May 2007 22:13:12 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Factor out common MODULE_INFO content from module*.h files.

On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 03:51:18PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 03:06:15PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >
> > > In order to eventually break the interdependency between the module.h
> > > and moduleparam.h header files, factor out the common MODULE_INFO
> > > content into a new header file.
> >
> > The moduleinfo.h file looks redundant at first look.
> > Why not push relevant parts from moduleparam.h (the
> > MODULE_INFO bits) to module.h and let go of
> > the include of moduleparam.h in module.h (when you
> > have fixed the users)?
> >
> > In this way we do not add an extra .h file.
> > And files that needs moduleparam.h will anyway always need module.h.
> > But not the other way around.
> 
> no problem, i can go that way, too, but there's just one (admittedly
> picky) issue associated with that.
> 
> based on the above, we would have:
> 
> 1) module.h handling all generic module content, and
> 2) moduleparam.h would "#include" module.h and add the parameter
> stuff.
> 
> fair enough, but note that, with that, if you wanted parameter
> support, you would need to include *only* "moduleparam.h".  are you
> good with that?  (as i said, it's picky, but you'd probably still have
> a lot of people who, through force of habit, would still #include both
> just because they think it's necessary.  wouldn't hurt, of course,
> since module.h would be protected against multiple inclusion.)
> 
> so if you're good with all of the above, i can do that.

The above is fine and better than having an extra file.

	Sam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/