On 7/23/07, Rusty Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 19:59 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 09:05:54AM -0700, Nelson, Shannon wrote:
> > Gabriel C [mailto:[email protected]]
> > >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I got this warning on current git using gcc 4.2.1 :
> > >
> > >...
> > >
> > >drivers/dma/ioatdma.c: In function 'ioat_init_module':
> > >drivers/dma/ioatdma.c:816: warning: the address of
> > >'__this_module' will always evaluate as 'true'
> >...
>
> I'm less interested in why this gives a warning, more interesting is the
> code:
> __unsafe(THIS_MODULE);
>
> @Rusty:
> As far as I understand it, __unsafe() wasn't intended for such a usage,
> and simply not providing an exit function would be the right solution?
> If this is true, and since the MOD_INC_USE_COUNT compat code is long
> gone, shouldn't we be able to completely remove __unsafe() and the
> struct member "unsafe"?
Yes, indeed, something like this:
==
Remove "unsafe" from module struct
Adrian Bunk points out that "unsafe" was used to mark modules touched by
the deprecated MOD_INC_USE_COUNT interface, which has long gone. It's
time to remove the member from the module structure, as well.
If you want a module which can't unload, don't register an exit
function.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
-
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/
[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]
