[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] Re: [git pull] device-mapper patches for 2.6.29
- From: Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com>
- To: crquan gmail com
- Cc: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda ct jp nec com>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, device-mapper development <dm-devel redhat com>, Andi Kleen <andi firstfloor org>, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka redhat com>, Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura ce jp nec com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds linux-foundation org>, Milan Broz <mbroz redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Re: [git pull] device-mapper patches for 2.6.29
- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:48:45 +0000
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 11:32:51AM +0800, Cheng Renquan (程任全) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 11:15:58AM +0800, Cheng Renquan (程任全) wrote:
> >> So now maybe we can add a null macro to module_refcount if
> >> CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD undefined?
> > Do we even need the test at all?
> So you mean add "#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD ..." to dm-target.c? I
> can do that, but I really don't know a better solution without
> conditional compiling?
I mean under what set of circumstances could the test of the module refcount
here fail, and if the test was simply removed are there any cases where that
would matter?
Alasdair
--
agk redhat com
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]