Whoops I see you already folllowed it up. On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> IIUC it should be safe to extend module_struct with a minor bump to >>>>> add 'int flags' to the bottom, but when you check the value you'd need >>>>> to check the MMN first. In the module you'd then just have some flags >>>>> or'ed together after register_hooks. >>>> >>>> Something like the attached patch might do it (untested, no MMN minor >>>> bump). >>>> >>>>> >>>>> (hopefully someone will check my work) >>>> >>>> Since modules (module_struct) are déclared globally, unspecified >>>> fields at the end of the struct should be initialized to zero, so it >>>> should be safe. >>> >>> I was thinking about modules compiled against the previous definition >>> / out of tree. >> >> Hmm, I'm not sure my commits address this. >> >> The modules would be run by the latest core without being recompiled >> against it, that's the case? > > Yes, I think it not yet handled because you're checking the cores MMN > # at compile time. > > I think we need an accessor or macro to retrieve the flags that looks > at the module_struct being evaluated which I think also has their > compile-time MMN baked in. Probably best to have this be a simple > function rather than a macro. > > > -- > Eric Covener > cove...@gmail.com
-- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
