[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201006041032.04323.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:32:03 +0930
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Brandon Philips <brandon@...p.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: fix bne2 "gave up waiting for init of module libcrc32c"
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 01:54:19 am Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >
> > However, you're right that it has potential. I'll rename module_info to
> > load_info if you don't mind tho: contains more semantic punch IMHO.
>
> Umm. One problem is that you will almost certainly eventually want to
> expose that to the architecture "fixup" routines (ie things like
> module_frob_arch_sections(), arch_mod_section_prepend()), and at that
> point "load_info" is a horribly bad structure name, since it would show
> up in <linux/module.h> and thus be exported all over.
>
> At least call it "struct module_load_info". But yes, I do agree that the
> "load" part is important.
Looking at the arch code, it has the advantage that it's self-contained.
They've been pleasantly undemanding from the core over the years; I think
archs doing tricky things with elf prefer to parse the object themselves
anyway. And I'm not sure they want to revisit it, either.
So I don't think we'd win much from changing them. I'm wrong later, I'll
prepend "module_" to the struct name as an internal change then hit them
all.
> I looked at that particularly when doing that whole
>
> mod = setup_module_info(&info);
> if (IS_ERR(mod)) {
> err = PTR_ERR(mod);
> goto free_hdr;
> }
>
> thing, because that made "mod" have _three_ totally different values
> (error, before, after) when jumping out to the failure paths.
Yep, it now is back to sanity. Let's see if today's linux-next is
happy.
If so, do you want just the fixes or the whole refactoring too, while
it's nice and fresh?
Thanks!
Rusty.
--
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