On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:36:10 -0800, David Mosberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Keith, > >I didn't see any followup to your message. My apologies if I missed >something. > >You wrote: > > Keith> inter_module_* and __symbol_* solve these class of problems: > > Keith> Module A can use module B if B is loaded, but A does not > Keith> require module B to do its work. B is optional. > > Keith> The kernel can use code in module C is C is loaded, but the > Keith> base kernel does not require module C. C is optional. > >Why isn't this handled via weak references? If the reference comes >out as 0, you know the underlying module/facility isn't there and >proceed accordingly.
Weak references are only done once, when the module is loaded. We already use weak references for static determination of symbol availability. inter_module_* and __symbol_* are aimed at the dynamic reference problem, not static. Module A can use module B if B is loaded, but A does not require module B to do its work. B can be loaded at any time, or even unloaded at any time, although that is much rarer. Dynamic references require a register/unregister style interface, thus inter_module_* and __symbol_*. Does the kernel code really need optional dynamic references between modules or kernel -> modules? That depends on how people code their modules. If the rest of the kernel no longer needs dynamic symbol reference then drop inter_module_* and __symbol_*. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
