[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZqPmPufwqbGOTyGI@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:09:02 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Youling Tang <youling.tang@...ux.dev>, kreijack@...ind.it,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Youling Tang <tangyouling@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: Add module_subinit{_noexit} and
module_subeixt helper macros
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 01:58:00PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Yeah, that's my reaction as well. This only saves 50 lines of code in
> ext4, and that includes unrelated changes such as getting rid of "int
> i" and putting the declaration into the for loop --- "for (int i =
> ..."). Sure, that saves two lines of code, but yay?
>
> If the ordering how the functions gets called is based on the magic
> ordering in the Makefile, I'm not sure this actually makes the code
> clearer, more robust, and easier to maintain for the long term.
So you two object to kernel initcalls for the same reason and would
rather go back to calling everything explicitly?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists