[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8F559BD9-D7D4-4669-9C87-0582F06E730F@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 16:50:47 +0000
From: Song Liu <songliubraving@...a.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
"linux-modules@...r.kernel.org" <linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] module: replace module_layout with module_memory
> On Feb 1, 2023, at 2:07 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
[...]
>
> ... you write something like:
>
> #define for_class_mod_mem_type(type, class) \
> for_each_mod_mem_type(type) \
> if (mod_mem_type_is_##class(type))
>
> Then we can write things like:
>
> for_class_mod_mem_type(type, init)
> for_class_mod_mem_type(type, data)
>
> and
>
> for_class_mod_mem_type(type, core_data)
>
> (this last could be used in show_datasize() for example).
>
> Does that make sense?
It sure does. Let me give it a try.
Thanks,
Song
Powered by blists - more mailing lists