Re: [PATCH] net #3

[Andrzej Krzysztofowicz <ankry@pg.gda.pl>]

"David Woodhouse wrote:"
> 
> ankry@green.mif.pg.gda.pl said:
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_ISAPNP 
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_ISAPNP) || (defined(CONFIG_ISAPNP_MODULE) && defined(MODULE)) 
> 
> The result here would be a 3c509 module which differs depending on whether 
> the ISAPNP module happened to be compiled at the same time or not. 

I'm just thinking whether the ISA PnP hardware related modules should depend
on isa-pnp.o at all 
(I mean having different behaviour of a the SAME (compiled) module depending
on whether isa-pnp.o is available or not)

It is just adding some persistent pointers for isa-pnp functions to the
kernel and teaching the modules to use request_module(). Probably also some
hacking to keep away from already used ISA PnP hardware during
initialization...

Also implementing "nopnp" option should be mandatory, IMHO.

> The ISAPNP-specific parts of the code aren't large. Please consider
> including them unconditionally instead. 

I see no objection if __init for modules is implemented...

Andrzej
-- 
=======================================================================
  Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz               ankry@mif.pg.gda.pl
  phone (48)(58) 347 14 61
Faculty of Applied Phys. & Math.,   Technical University of Gdansk