From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262001AbTDIDN7 (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 23:13:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262005AbTDIDN6 (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 23:13:58 -0400 Received: from dp.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:24231 "EHLO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262001AbTDIDN6 (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 23:13:58 -0400 From: Rusty Russell To: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: SET_MODULE_OWNER? Cc: zwane@linuxpower.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, Kai Germaschewski , sfr@canb.auug.org.au, "Nemosoft Unv." , davem@redhat.com In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:03:00 -0400." <3E937144.9090105@pobox.com> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 13:23:33 +1000 Message-Id: <20030409032537.547E32C06F@lists.samba.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <3E937144.9090105@pobox.com> you write: > Why don't you just let the maintainers apply the driver "cleanups" if > they wish, or do not wish, like DaveM did. Only when that is > accomplished is it reasonable to consider moving SET_MODULE_OWNER -- and > only then if other people do not need it's obvious utility. The please define when it should and should not be used, so everyone knows. Currently it seems to be: /* This macro should be used on structures which had the owner field added between 2.2 and 2.4, and not others. */ Is that correct? Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.