Well, "soon" here is > 12 months away, of course. And most of it
involves removing, rather than adding, code.
> Rusty> I thought about letting archs choose which one they wanted to
> Rusty> use, but it would really mess up the core code. Of course,
> Rusty> the transition won't break userspace (kind of the whole point
> Rusty> of the in-kernel module loader).
> But it would be more in keeping with the Linux philosophy: do the
> Right Thing, fix up "broken" stuff by doing whatever is necessary.
I think you missed the "work around what we can't change" (eg. always
initializing per-cpu variables because Sparc's toolchain is broken, or
adding that crazy restart stuff so we didn't have to create a one-arg
re-enterable nanosleep then make glibc use it).
And, of course, the other Golden Rule: "if it's not x86, it doesn't
> I'm also a bit worried about changing module loaders so often. Yeah,
> once you switch to a kernel-loader, presumably users won't be
> affected, but (kernel-module) developers will be.
While ET_DYN modules are a reasonably serious win for ia64 (and
probably hppa) (ie. -300 lines or so), they're a minor win for alpha
and ppc64 (-100 lines or so), and no real change for arm, i386, ppc,
sparc, and sparc64. It's a lose for x86_64 (toolchain fixes, unless
they want to use -fPIC for modules), mips and mips64 (major toolchain
fixes, unless they want to use -fPIC for modules and stop using r28
for current inside modules).
So, if I were ia64 maintainer, I'd be lobbying for ET_DYN modules now,
too, but I don't it's a big enough general win to outweigh the other
-- 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 email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/