linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ramfs: Remove module leftovers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:24:43 +0200
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	dchinner@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ramfs: Remove module leftovers

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 01:13:22PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Removing the dead code looks good, but what is the point in using
> > device_initcall?  We've always been using module_init for non-modular
> > code, though.
> > 
> 
> Ah, ok!
> So we can keep the module_init()?
> I was not sure whether it's valid to use module_init() in pure
> non-modular code...

It is valid.  And if it's not the style de jour anymore thousands of people
will flame me now, but I've always done it that way.

--
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/