From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263865AbTDHCBF (for ); Mon, 7 Apr 2003 22:01:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263869AbTDHCBF (for ); Mon, 7 Apr 2003 22:01:05 -0400 Received: from dp.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:34536 "EHLO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263865AbTDHCBB (for ); Mon, 7 Apr 2003 22:01:01 -0400 From: Rusty Russell To: Jeff Garzik Cc: zwane@linuxpower.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org Subject: Re: SET_MODULE_OWNER? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 07 Apr 2003 14:29:44 -0400." <3E91C398.9070400@pobox.com> Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 12:01:37 +1000 Message-Id: <20030408021239.1155C2C4EE@lists.samba.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <3E91C398.9070400@pobox.com> you write: > Rusty Russell wrote: > > I thought it was completely useless, hence deprecated. > > > > Anyone have any reason to defend it? > > > It's used to allow source compatibility with all kernels, old or new. > > Thus it is in active use, and should not be removed. Inside individual drivers, or a set of compat macros, it makes sense. But as a general module.h primitive it doesn't. Imagine a structure adds an owner field in 2.5. This macro doesn't help you, you need a specific compat macro for that struct. ie. AFAICT it only buys you 2.2 compatibility, and even then only if you #define it at the top of your driver. I still don't understand: please demonstrate a use in existing source. Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.