From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kostenzer Felix <fkostenzer@live.at>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH akpm v2] lib: test_sort: make it explicitly non-modular
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:32:12 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170228143212.GH8577@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdUnj2D856hESv-fFxt3B2ENki6JsFM199tY7oO-OrCALA@mail.gmail.com>
[Re: [PATCH akpm v2] lib: test_sort: make it explicitly non-modular] On 28/02/2017 (Tue 12:43) Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Paul Gortmaker
> <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> wrote:
> > The Kconfig currently controlling compilation of this code is:
> >
> > lib/Kconfig.debug:config TEST_SORT
> > lib/Kconfig.debug: bool "Array-based sort test"
> >
> > ...meaning that it currently is not being built as a module by anyone.
> >
> > Lets remove the couple traces of modular infrastructure use, so that
> > when reading the code there is no doubt it is builtin-only.
> >
> > Since module_init translates to device_initcall in the non-modular
> > case, the init ordering becomes slightly earlier when we change it
> > to use subsys_initcall as done here. However, since it is a self
> > contained test, this shouldn't be an issue and subsys_initcall
> > seems like a better fit for this particular case.
> >
> > We also delete the MODULE_LICENSE tag since that information is now
> > contained at the top of the file in the comments.
>
> Yeah, MODULE_LICENSE is too easy to grep for... :-(
>
> > Cc: Kostenzer Felix <fkostenzer@live.at>
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
>
> Can we please stop doing this?
>
As I've said many times, I have no problem with things being modular if
there is a use case for it to be so. And it makes sense to have that
demand driven.
What I'm striving for is consistency between the Kconfig and the source
code, and I'll continue to work on that.
Thanks,
Paul.
--
> It's very valuable to have modular tests, so you can run them just by
> insmodding the test, instead of needing a separate kernel that runs them
> at boot.
>
> Will send a revert + modular enablement...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-28 14:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-24 22:56 Paul Gortmaker
2017-02-28 11:43 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-28 14:32 ` Paul Gortmaker [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170228143212.GH8577@windriver.com \
--to=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=fkostenzer@live.at \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome