Re: [PATCH] init_module: update to modern interfaces

From: Rusty Russell
Date: Thu Oct 18 2012 - 00:42:00 EST

"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Rusty,
> Thanks for the review! One open question below.
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> [CC widened, so that some more review might come in. Rusty?]
>> Sure.
>> Looks good. but:
>>> .B EBUSY
>>> The module's initialization routine failed.
>> Possibly. You should mention that the individual module's
>> initialization routine can return other errors as appropriate.
> Done!
> In fact, the existing EBUSY text seems completely bogus. Should it not
> read something like
> "Timeout while trying to resolve a symbol reference by this module."?

Yes, indeed.

>>> .BR EINVAL " (Linux 2.4 and earlier)"
>>> Some
>>> .I image
>>> slot is filled in incorrectly,
>>> .I image\->name
>>> does not correspond to the original module name, some
>>> .I image\->deps
>>> entry does not correspond to a loaded module,
>>> or some other similar inconsistency.
>>> .TP
>> Why document this?
> Because the general approach in man-pages is to document past as well
> as current behavior. Since there are few user-space customers of
> init_module(), perhaps you are right that this is unnecessary. I
> dropped it.

It was just that you didn't refer to the old structure anywhere else...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at