Re: SET_MODULE_OWNER?

From: Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2003 - 22:23:33 EST

Next message: R S-P Chan: "Does kbuild 2.5 support separate obj/src trees"
Previous message: Martin J. Bligh: "[PATCH] fix sched_idle typo"
In reply to: Jeff Garzik: "Re: SET_MODULE_OWNER?"
Next in thread: Jeff Garzik: "Re: SET_MODULE_OWNER?"
Reply: Jeff Garzik: "Re: SET_MODULE_OWNER?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In message <3E937144.9090105@pobox.com> you write:
> Why don't you just let the maintainers apply the driver "cleanups" if
> they wish, or do not wish, like DaveM did. Only when that is
> accomplished is it reasonable to consider moving SET_MODULE_OWNER -- and
> only then if other people do not need it's obvious utility.

The please define when it should and should not be used, so everyone
knows.

Currently it seems to be:

/* This macro should be used on structures which had the owner field
added between 2.2 and 2.4, and not others. */

Is that correct?
Rusty.

--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
-
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/

Next message: R S-P Chan: "Does kbuild 2.5 support separate obj/src trees"
Previous message: Martin J. Bligh: "[PATCH] fix sched_idle typo"
In reply to: Jeff Garzik: "Re: SET_MODULE_OWNER?"
Next in thread: Jeff Garzik: "Re: SET_MODULE_OWNER?"
Reply: Jeff Garzik: "Re: SET_MODULE_OWNER?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 22:00:17 EST