Re: [PATCH][RFC] disable built-in modules V2

[Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>]

On Apr 7, 2005 4:23 AM, Roland Dreier <roland@topspin.com> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/