Prev: [PATCH 2/2] pci: pciehp update the slot bridge res to get big range for pcie devices - v8
Next: 2.6.31.4 panic: CRED: put_cred_rcu() sees ffff880204e58c00 with usage 82150912
From: Takashi Iwai on 30 Oct 2009 06:20
At Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:51:28 +1030,
Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> This is more kernel-ish, saves some space, and also allows us to
> expand the ops without breaking all the callers who are happy for the
> new members to be NULL.
>
> The few places which defined their own param types are changed to the
> new scheme.
>
> Since we're touching them anyway, we change get and set to take a
> const struct kernel_param (which they were, and will be again).
>
> To reduce churn, module_param_call creates the ops struct so the callers
> don't have to change (and casts the functions to reduce warnings).
> The modern version which takes an ops struct is called module_param_cb.

This is nice, as it also reduces the size of struct kernel_param, so
each parameter uses less footprint (who cares, though?) :)

But, just wondering whether we still need to export get/set
functions. They can be called from ops now, so if any, it can be
defined even as an inlinefunction or a macro.


thanks,

Takashi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Rusty Russell on 30 Oct 2009 07:20
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:48:12 pm Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:51:28 +1030,
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> >
> > This is more kernel-ish, saves some space, and also allows us to
> > expand the ops without breaking all the callers who are happy for the
> > new members to be NULL.
> >
> > The few places which defined their own param types are changed to the
> > new scheme.
> >
> > Since we're touching them anyway, we change get and set to take a
> > const struct kernel_param (which they were, and will be again).
> >
> > To reduce churn, module_param_call creates the ops struct so the callers
> > don't have to change (and casts the functions to reduce warnings).
> > The modern version which takes an ops struct is called module_param_cb.
>
> This is nice, as it also reduces the size of struct kernel_param, so
> each parameter uses less footprint (who cares, though?) :)
>
> But, just wondering whether we still need to export get/set
> functions. They can be called from ops now, so if any, it can be
> defined even as an inlinefunction or a macro.

My thought too, so I tried that, but many are still used like so:

module_param_call(foo, set_foo, param_get_uint, NULL, 0644);

They can all be replaced in time with something like:
static int param_get_foo(char *buffer, const struct kernel_param *kp)
{
return param_ops_uint.get(buffer, kp);
}

But it'll take a transition period.

Thanks!
Rusty.



>
>
> thanks,
>
> Takashi
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Takashi Iwai on 1 Nov 2009 05:30
At Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:43:39 +1030,
Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:48:12 pm Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:51:28 +1030,
> > Rusty Russell wrote:
> > >
> > > This is more kernel-ish, saves some space, and also allows us to
> > > expand the ops without breaking all the callers who are happy for the
> > > new members to be NULL.
> > >
> > > The few places which defined their own param types are changed to the
> > > new scheme.
> > >
> > > Since we're touching them anyway, we change get and set to take a
> > > const struct kernel_param (which they were, and will be again).
> > >
> > > To reduce churn, module_param_call creates the ops struct so the callers
> > > don't have to change (and casts the functions to reduce warnings).
> > > The modern version which takes an ops struct is called module_param_cb.
> >
> > This is nice, as it also reduces the size of struct kernel_param, so
> > each parameter uses less footprint (who cares, though?) :)
> >
> > But, just wondering whether we still need to export get/set
> > functions. They can be called from ops now, so if any, it can be
> > defined even as an inlinefunction or a macro.
>
> My thought too, so I tried that, but many are still used like so:
>
> module_param_call(foo, set_foo, param_get_uint, NULL, 0644);
>
> They can all be replaced in time with something like:
> static int param_get_foo(char *buffer, const struct kernel_param *kp)
> {
> return param_ops_uint.get(buffer, kp);
> }
>
> But it'll take a transition period.

Fair enough. And, maybe these get/set should be defined as an ops
explicitly so that it can be used for multiple parameters. But we
can do cleanups later, of course :)

Oh, in case you need,
Reviewed-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai(a)suse.de>
for all new patches.


Thanks!

Takashi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: [PATCH 2/2] pci: pciehp update the slot bridge res to get big range for pcie devices - v8
Next: 2.6.31.4 panic: CRED: put_cred_rcu() sees ffff880204e58c00 with usage 82150912