From: Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
To: davidm@hpl.hp.com
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: Your message of "Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:52:06 -0800."
             <16885.31766.730042.408639@napali.hpl.hp.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:54:36 +1100
Message-ID: <31189.1106607276@ocs3.ocs.com.au>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1138
Lines: 28

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:52:06 -0800, 
David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:44:18 +1100, Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au> said:
>
>  Keith> Does the kernel code really need optional dynamic references
>  Keith> between modules or kernel -> modules?  That depends on how
>  Keith> people code their modules.  If the rest of the kernel no
>  Keith> longer needs dynamic symbol reference then drop
>  Keith> inter_module_* and __symbol_*.
>
>Well, the only place that I know of where I (have to) care about
>inter_module*() is because of the DRM/AGP dependency.  I can't imagine
>DRM being overly happy if an AGP device suddenly disappeared, so I
>think static is fine (in fact, probably preferable).

Does DRM support this model?

* Start DRM without AGP.
* AGP is loaded.
* DRM continues but now using AGP.

If yes then it needs dynamic symbol resolution.

-
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/