On 29/07/2024 10:44, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 09:46:17AM +0800, Youling Tang wrote:
1. Previous version implementation: array mode (see link 1) :
Advantages:
- Few changes, simple principle, easy to understand code.
Disadvantages:
- Each modified module
On 27/07/2024 22:52, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 11:09:02AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 01:58:00PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Yeah, that's my reaction as well. This only saves 50 lines of code in
ext4, and that includes unrelated changes such as ge
On 26/07/2024 03:46, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 07:14:14PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
Instead of relying to the "expected" order of the compiler/linker,
why doesn't manage the chain explicitly ? Something like:
Because that doesn't actually solve anything over simpl
On 24/07/2024 23:43, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 09:57:05AM +0800, Youling Tang wrote:
module_init(initfn)/module_exit(exitfn) has two definitions (via MODULE):
- buindin: uses do_initcalls() to iterate over the contents of the specified
section and executes all initfn
your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
url:
https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Youling-Tang/module-Add-modu
your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
url:
https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Youling-Tang/module-Add-modu
Hi, Christoph
On 23/07/2024 22:33, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 04:32:36PM +0800, Youling Tang wrote:
Providing module_subinit{_noexit} and module_subeixt helps macros ensure
that modules init/exit match their order, while also simplifying the code.
The three macros are
Hi, Mika
On 23/07/2024 17:58, Mika Penttilä wrote:
On 7/23/24 11:32, Youling Tang wrote:
From: Youling Tang
In theory init/exit should match their sequence, thus normally they should
look like this:
-+
init_A();|
init_B
Hi, Christoph
On 11/07/2024 16:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Can we please stop this boilerplate code an instead our __init/__exit
sections to supper multiple entires per module. This should be mostly
trivial, except that we'd probably want a single macro that has the
init and exit calls so that
From: Youling Tang
Use module_{subinit, subinit} to ensure that modules init and exit
are in sequence and to simplify the code.
Signed-off-by: Youling Tang
---
fs/f2fs/debug.c | 3 +-
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 4 +-
fs/f2fs/super.c | 139 +++-
3 files
From: Youling Tang
Use module_{subinit, subinit} to ensure that modules init and exit
are in sequence and to simplify the code.
Signed-off-by: Youling Tang
---
fs/ext4/super.c | 115 ++--
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-)
diff --git
From: Youling Tang
Use module_{subinit, subinit} to ensure that modules init and exit
are in sequence and to simplify the code.
Signed-off-by: Youling Tang
---
fs/btrfs/super.c | 123 +--
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 100 deletions(-)
diff
This series provides the module_subinit{_noexit} and module_subeixt helper
macros and applies to btrfs, ext4 and f2fs.
See link [1] for the previous discussion process.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240711074859.366088-1-youling.t...@linux.dev/
Youling Tang (4):
module: Add
From: Youling Tang
In theory init/exit should match their sequence, thus normally they should
look like this:
-+
init_A();|
init_B();|
init_C();|
| exit_C
14 matches
Mail list logo
