Re: [patch -mm] notifier chain initialization

Alan Stern wrote:

The benefit is that one can use the FOO_NOTIFIER_INIT() macro for
static initialization of a notifier chain.

You probably mean _dynamic_ initialization of a notifier head. The current code handles static initialization just fine.

Actually I meant static, I have a notifier declared within a struct and
a macro that initializes it at compile time - didn't work with the old
code.

But I also use it dynamically where this also benefits it.

There's nothing wrong with doing things like this. I didn't include initialization macros originally simply because there aren't any dynamically-initialized notifier heads in the kernel.

There probably will be :)

Cheers,
Jes
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [patch -mm] notifier chain initialization
    • From: Alan Stern <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Try 2, Fix release function in IPMI device model
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Try 2, Fix release function in IPMI device model
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch -mm] notifier chain initialization
• Next by thread: [patch 4/6] s390: qeth :allow setting of attribute "route6" to "no_router".
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]