On Apr 7, 2005 4:23 AM, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > -#define module_init(x) __initcall(x);
> > > +#define module_init(x) __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x);
> >
> > It would be better if there is brackets around them... like
> >
> > #define module_init(x) { __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x); }
> >
> > then we know it wont break some code like
> >
> > if (..)
> > module_init(x);
>
> This is all completely academic, since module_init() is a declaration
> that won't be inside any code, but in general it's better still to use
> the do { } while (0) idiom like
>
> #define module_init(x) do { __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x); } while
> (0)
>
> so it won't break code like
>
> if (..)
> module_init(x);
> else
> something_else();
>
> (Yes, that code is nonsense but if you're going to nitpick, go all the way...)
Right. =)
Anyway, besides nitpicking, is there any reason not to include this
code? Or is the added feature considered plain bloat? Yes, the kernel
will become a bit larger, but all the data added by this patch will go
into the init section.
/ magnus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
