Re: owner field in `struct fs'

Ingo Oeser (ingo.oeser@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de)
Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:33:53 +0200


On Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 11:38:11PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Random module writer does not have to think about it - the rule is dead
> simple. You have a character device and it's modular - stick
> owner:THIS_MODULE into file_operations and forget about it. Similar rules
> go for other subsystems. Notice that they are replacing the current rules
> regarding the places where you have to put MOD_{INC,DEC}_MOD_COUNT and
> they are way simpler.

Aehm, what should I do in the hardware detection phase? There I
don't know if I have the hardware at all. Or do you propose, that
the module is locked during init() and cleanup of my module?

I[1] am ok with these changes as long as these mechanisms are
_DOCUMENTED_ somewhere _EXCEPT_ in the source itself.

<HINT>Kernelbooks are hip these days</HINT>

Looking at old code (which you proposed for subsystem writers)
also means making old mistakes again.

You[2] should know this from your "I change core semantics and
have to implement it everywhere"-experience ;-)

[1] as writing a upcoming subsystem
[2] And all other people explicit listed in the header of this
mail

-- 
Feel the power of the penguin - run linux@your.pc
<esc>:x

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/