Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:04:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:03:54 -0400 Received: from [194.213.32.142] ([194.213.32.142]:27140 "EHLO bug.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:03:45 -0400 Message-ID: <20010712000448.A333@bug.ucw.cz> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:04:48 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Rusty Russell , Jeff Garzik Cc: kaos@ocs.com.au, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: RFC: modules and 2.5 In-Reply-To: <3B4718CC.483CE54E@mandrakesoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93i In-Reply-To: ; from Rusty Russell on Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 05:40:43PM +1000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > IMHO you should be free to bump the module reference count up and down > > as you wish, and be able to read the module reference count. > > > > If you make that assumption, then it becomes possible to use the module > > ref count as an internal reference counter, for device opens or > > something like that. > > Surely the exception rather than the rule? > > Sorry, complicating the code and making everyone pay the penalty so > you can take a confusing short cut in your code is not something we're > going to agree on. Actually, having uniform interface between kernel and modules is very nice... And one int per module does not surely hurt, does it? Perhaps #define NEED_USE_COUNT to do it on per-module basis? Pavel -- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - 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/