Il 16/09/2013 12:14, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:09:47PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 16/09/2013 11:51, Fam Zheng ha scritto: >>> On Mon, 09/16 11:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>> Il 16/09/2013 10:59, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto: >>>>>> The init function of dynamic module is no longer with >>>>>> __attribute__((constructor)) as static linked version, and need to be >>>>>> explicitly called once loaded. The function name is mangled with per >>>>>> configure fingerprint as: >>>>>> >>>>>> init_$(date +%s$$$RANDOM) >>>> >>>> Does this work for a module that calls module_init multiple times? >>> >>> Why should a module calls module_init, instead of the main function? >> >> I think you mean "why should a module calls register_module_init", and I >> agree that with this patch a module will not call register_module_init. >> >> But a module is still using the module_init macro. >> >> With this patch, a module will not be able to use the module_init macro >> twice. I am not sure this is an acceptable limitation, especially if we >> do not have a dependency system within modules and/or load them with >> G_MODULE_LOCAL/RTLD_LOCAL. > > Why would a module ever want to use the module_init macro twice ?
Because our coding standard is to have each source file do its own one-time initialization, using static functions and an invocation of module_init per source file. The reason is that otherwise you risk having function name conflicts in the static-link case. Paolo > IIUC > this function is supposed todo one-time initialization work for the .so > module. Surely any place where a module wanted to use module_init twice > could be solved by having that module put all its init logic into just > one function. So I'm not sure I see where the problem is.
