Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262507AbVDGRX4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:23:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262510AbVDGRX4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:23:56 -0400 Received: from alog0304.analogic.com ([208.224.222.80]:9395 "EHLO chaos.analogic.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262507AbVDGRXs (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:23:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:22:57 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard B. Johnson" Reply-To: linux-os@analogic.com To: "Randy.Dunlap" cc: Magnus Damm , roland@topspin.com, asterixthegaul@gmail.com, damm@opensource.se, Linux kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] disable built-in modules V2 In-Reply-To: <20050407100147.7b91a2d2.rddunlap@osdl.org> Message-ID: References: <20050405225747.15125.8087.59570@clementine.local><54b5dbf505040618324186678a@mail.gmail.com><528y3v72al.fsf@topspin.com> <20050407100147.7b91a2d2.rddunlap@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2131 Lines: 59 On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:23:32 +0200 Magnus Damm wrote: > > | On Apr 7, 2005 4:23 AM, Roland Dreier wrote: > | > > > -#define module_init(x) __initcall(x); > | > > > +#define module_init(x) __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x); > | > > > | > > It would be better if there is brackets around them... like > | > > > | > > #define module_init(x) { __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x); } > | > > > | > > then we know it wont break some code like > | > > > | > > if (..) > | > > module_init(x); > | > > | > This is all completely academic, since module_init() is a declaration > | > that won't be inside any code, but in general it's better still to use > | > the do { } while (0) idiom like > | > > | > #define module_init(x) do { __initcall(x); __module_init_disable(x); } while (0) > | > > | > so it won't break code like > | > > | > if (..) > | > module_init(x); > | > else > | > something_else(); > | > > | > (Yes, that code is nonsense but if you're going to nitpick, go all the way...) > | > | Right. =) > | Anyway, besides nitpicking, is there any reason not to include this > | code? Or is the added feature considered plain bloat? Yes, the kernel > | will become a bit larger, but all the data added by this patch will go > | into the init section. > > Looks like a good idea to me. > > --- > ~Randy Can't you disable module-loading with a module? I think so. You don't need to modify the kernel. Boot-scripts could just load the "final" module and there is nothing that can be done to add another module (or even unload existing ones). Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.11 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips). Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush. 98.36% of all statistics are fiction. - 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/