Re: owner field in `struct fs'

[Rusty Russell]

In message <[e-mail]> you wr
ite:
> > Adding a field to every registerable structure is gross.  The
> 
> And adding the same code all over the place apparently isn't. Right.

You've made convincing arguments for the changes to struct fs; my
tendency after looking through that code is to agree with you.

However, my request for sane module semantics remains for other
subsystems.  There are other problems[1], but this addresses an important
one.

My preferred method would be to split cleanup() into `deactivate()'
and `cleanup()', but I decided that was too radical a change for this
late in 2.4.

Rusty.
[1]  We also need to sync against timers before freeing the module memory.
--
Hacking time.