On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00:27PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > > I think we still want to make sure that the module author has explicitly
> > > accounted for all of the hooks, in case new hooks are added.
> >
> > But with this patch, if the module author hasn't specified a hook, they
> > get the "dummy" ones. So the structure should always be full of
> > pointers, making the VERIFY_STRUCT macro pointless.
>
> Yes, but defaulting unspecified hooks to dummy operations could be
> dangerous. A module might appear to compile and run perfectly well, but
> be missing some important new hook.
One could argue that a "important new hook" would provide a sane dummy
operation, or that if the module doesn't need it, why would it want to
provide it? :)
Anyway, there's no way to resolve both this percieved problem, and the
"smaller and easier" patch that I proposed, right? Unless we want to
export all dummy operation functions for all modules to use? I could do
that, but it's pretty messy...
thanks,
greg k-h
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:00:12 EST