[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100407152852.GA13425@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:28:52 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Michal Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@...site.dk>,
Rupesh Gujare <rupeshgujare@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] USB: composite: allow optional removal of __init
and __exit tags
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 03:41:28PM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> The composite framework has been written using __init and __exit tags
> to mark init and exit functions as such. This works with most of the
> composite gadgets however some may need to call init/exit functions
> during normal operations. One example is mass storage gadget which
> needs to call exit functions.
>
> This patch allows gadgets to define USB_NO_INIT_SEGMENT or
> USB_NO_EXIT_SEGMENT to remove the __init and __exit declarations
> from composite framework.
Ick ick ick.
How about we just drop the __init and __exit tags completly and then
we don't have to propagate this mess any further?
How much memory do they really save anyway?
I don't like this at all...
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists