On 2015-08-26 12:06 AM, Rusty Russell wrote: > Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortma...@windriver.com> writes: >> The Kconfig currently controlling compilation of this code is: >> >> menuconfig MODULES >> bool "Enable loadable module support" >> >> ...meaning that it currently is not being built as a module by anyone. >> No surprise here, since modular support being a module would be an >> interesting chicken before the egg problem. >> >> Lets remove the use of module_init in this code so that when reading >> the file, there is less doubt that it is builtin-only. >> >> Since module_init translates to device_initcall in the non-modular >> case, the init ordering remains unchanged with this commit. However >> one could argue that fs_initcall makes more sense for proc stuff, >> and we can change the initcall order later and watch for fallout >> if so desired. > > This patch is just weird; is this part of something larger you are > trying to do?
Yes, it is part of a larger cleanup; for subsystems with more than one patch I created a 0/N explanatory note; such as: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1440459295-21814-1-git-send-email-paul.gortma...@windriver.com https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1437530538-5078-1-git-send-email-paul.gortma...@windriver.com and others. Apologies for the lack of context on this single patch. > I would argue that module_init() should be the default; it implies > no dependencies on the initialization, and it's a common pattern. To summarize briefly, module_init forces everything into one initcall priority bin, it encourages people to write module_exit functions that are never used, and it can make the code appear inconsistent with the Kconfig and/or Makefile settings. So I'd hope you'd agree that there is value in not using module_init in code that can never be modular. Thanks, Paul. -- > > Cheers, > Rusty. > >> We can't of course delete the module.h include in this case since it >> is used all through the rest of the file. >> >> Cc: Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> >> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortma...@windriver.com> >> --- >> >> [I was undecided as to whether we should do this in one step >> or two, i.e. instead just make the change to fs_initcall here >> and now, and so went with the more cautious/granular approach.] >> >> kernel/module.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c >> index 8f051a106676..7750bdcb12fc 100644 >> --- a/kernel/module.c >> +++ b/kernel/module.c >> @@ -3947,7 +3947,7 @@ static int __init proc_modules_init(void) >> proc_create("modules", 0, NULL, &proc_modules_operations); >> return 0; >> } >> -module_init(proc_modules_init); >> +device_initcall(proc_modules_init); >> #endif >> >> /* Given an address, look for it in the module exception tables. */ >> -- >> 2.5.0 >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
