Re: [idea] request_module(const char *fmt, ...);

[David Woodhouse]

[e-mail] said:
>  actually I thought you meant the opposite, i.e. in exceptional cases
> run time performance is more important than compilation time, which is
> why I gave loading a binary example. In all other cases (e.g.
> requesting a module when opening a device an extra function call is
> exactly what I called it - "almost nothing"). In cases where it adds
> substantial overhead of re-walking through the entire list (e.g.
> get_fs_type which walks through file_systems) the caller should (and
> does) check the return from request_module() and only does the extra
> work if it is == 0. 

OK, I tend to agree with you. Not just because it takes less time to recompile 
the kernel after changing things - but mainly because I think we should try to 
cut down the number of factors which affect the compatibility of modules.

--
dwmw2