Am 29.12.2012 um 14:57 schrieb Paul Goyette <[email protected]>: > On Sat, 29 Dec 2012, Marc Balmer wrote: > >>> this is going to upset dyoung i'm sure :) but it seems to me that >>> if these invasive changes to individual subsystems are needed like >>> this, and we want them to be optional, then imo they should be on >>> a per-subsystem basis, not global. eg something like: >>> >>> options LINEDISC_LUA >>> options GPIOSIM_LUA >>> >>> etc. the ugliness could/should be largely hidden in header files. >> >> The problem remains that modules no nothing about kernel options. Maybe - in >> an ideal world - there should be no kernel options at all, but only >> modules... ;) > > Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but why can you not have your > line-discipline module simply depend on a lua module? Then you no longer > need to know if the kernel "has lua" because it can always "get lua when it > needs it".
Yes absolutely. As long as we talk "modules-only", there is no problem. The problem I was trying to solve (and which is probably not solvable in a proper manner) is for statically linked kernels. As long as drivers like e.g. gpiosim(4) can be compiled as module _and_ as part of a static kernel, the issue remains. So to restate what I mentioned earlier: - For modules, the problem does not really exist, since they can "get Lua when they need it", as you mentioned above - For static kernels, an 'options LUA' could be used.
