Re: SET_MODULE_OWNER?

[Rusty Russell]

In message <[e-mail]> you write:
> > ie. AFAICT it only buys you 2.2 compatibility, and even then only if
> > you #define it at the top of your driver.
> 
> no, farther back than that, to infinity and beyond :)  The idea of the 
> macro is that on earlier kernels, it is simply a no-op, and module 
> refcounting is handled by other means.

Crap.  Since hch removed the other module ops, if your module does its
own refcount THAT won't compile in 2.5.

> > I still don't understand: please demonstrate a use in existing source.
> 
> demonstrate?  grep for it.  It's used quite a bit.  Removal of 
> SET_MODULE_OWNER looks to me to be pointless churn for negative gain. 
> If if you wish to pointedly ignore the old-source compatibility angle, 
> it is a nice convenience macro.

This is complete crap.  It's an obfuscation macro, with no backwards
compatibility capabilities as currently implemented.

Christoph went through and substituted try_inc_mod_count to
try_module_get, for no gain, and broke backwards compatibility.

Unlike that, substituting dev->owner = THIS_MODULE; has no backwards
compatibility loss, and it removes a confusing and pointless macro
which *never* had a point.

Unless you can come up with a real *reason*, I'll move it back under
"deprecated" and start substituting.

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