On Wed 18 Oct 2000 10:49:24 -0700,
   Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you 
> > 
> > > I have no idea what the get_module_symbol() code in question is trying to
> > > do, but this should be _fixed_ and not just worked around. That's a bug.
> > 
> > It gets the symbol of a function, that's name is passed as char * to
> > get_module_symbol().
> Oh, I know what get_module_symbol() does - I just don't understand why drm
> would want to use it. There are basically no good uses for it, as far as
> I'm concerned.
> I assume it's something about allowing modules to be loaded in the wrong
> order. Some other drivers did hooks like this in times past. The right
> solution was then, and is almost certainly now, to just remove the code in
> question and force the correct load order.

Just to clarify -- my use of get_module_symbol has nothing to do with
load order.  It has to do with allowing a drm module to work with or
without the agpgart module loaded.

If there's some other way to do this, I'll be happy to move to that.
I'd like to preserve the ability to have one driver which works with
each chipset family and not have to have separate drivers for PCI and
AGP cards (or, rather, to have fewer instances of the drivers -- they
already depend on SMP and MODVERSIONS, and that's a lot of overhead
already if you just want to play Q3A :).  I'd also like a dual-head
system to be able to load the same drm module and just have it work
for both the agp and the pci cards (this isn't supported yet, in case
anyone is wondering).

> Rik? Can this code just go away?

See above and my mail from a few minutes ago.  I'd like to keep it
(with the naming changes John Levon proposed, even if we don't make it
available when CONFIG_MODULES is 'n').
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to