From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261338AbTDHMik (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 08:38:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261340AbTDHMij (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 08:38:39 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-4-cust86.swan.cable.ntl.com ([213.105.254.86]:60568 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261338AbTDHMih (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 08:38:37 -0400 Subject: Re: SET_MODULE_OWNER? From: Alan Cox To: Rusty Russell Cc: Jeff Garzik , zwane@linuxpower.ca, Linux Kernel Mailing List , hch@infradead.org In-Reply-To: <20030408035210.02D142C06E@lists.samba.org> References: <20030408035210.02D142C06E@lists.samba.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Message-Id: <1049802672.8120.14.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 08 Apr 2003 12:51:12 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Maw, 2003-04-08 at 04:46, Rusty Russell wrote: > 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. Its an abstraction macro. > Unless you can come up with a real *reason*, I'll move it back under > "deprecated" and start substituting. Thats fun, and the rest of us can play submit patches to substitute it back. This is not how to work with people