From: David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16885.30810.787188.591830@napali.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:36:10 -0800
To: kaos@ocs.com.au
Cc: bgerst@didntduck.org, Terence Ripperda <tripperda@nvidia.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: inter_module_get and __symbol_get
In-Reply-To: <8829.1105153800@ocs3.ocs.com.au>
References: <8829.1105153800@ocs3.ocs.com.au>
Reply-To: davidm@hpl.hp.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 835
Lines: 25

Keith,

I didn't see any followup to your message.  My apologies if I missed
something.

You wrote:

 Keith> inter_module_* and __symbol_* solve these class of problems:

 Keith> Module A can use module B if B is loaded, but A does not
 Keith> require module B to do its work.  B is optional.

 Keith> The kernel can use code in module C is C is loaded, but the
 Keith> base kernel does not require module C.  C is optional.

Why isn't this handled via weak references?  If the reference comes
out as 0, you know the underlying module/facility isn't there and
proceed accordingly.

	--david
-
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/