On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 04:14:13PM +0200, Petr Pavlu wrote: > On 4/29/25 14:49, Alexey Gladkov wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 12:04:44PM +0200, Alexey Gladkov wrote: > >>> I'm not sure it's best to overload this data in this way. I think mixing > >>> actual files and "logical" modules in the modules list is somewhat > >>> confusing. > >>> > >>> An alternative would be to keep a single module struct for vmlinux and > >>> record the discovered aliases under it? > >> > >> It is possible to extend struct module_alias and add the module name. The > >> problem is that alias is added by module_alias_printf() and we will have > >> to add the module name to the arguments to each do_entry handler in > >> addition to struct module where there is already a name (but in our case > >> it is vmlinux). > >> > >> I can do that if you think it's a better way. > > > > If I don't add separate entries for each builtin module, the patch will > > look like this: > > [...] > > I see, that didn't turn out as well as I envisioned. One more approach > would be to track builtin modules separately. A patch is below. I'm not > sure if it's better.
I'm not sure I get it. What do you mean when you say I need to track builtin modules separately ? -- Rgrds, legion
