On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 12:05:10PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:59:54AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:48:23AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:45:20AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 11:46:28PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > > > > > In a subsequent patch we introduce the `Registration` abstraction used > > > > > to register driver structures. Some subsystems require the module name on > > > > > driver registration (e.g. PCI in __pci_register_driver()), hence pass > > > > > the module name to `Module::init`. > > > > > > > > Nit, we don't need the NAME of the PCI driver (well, we do like it, but > > > > that's not the real thing), we want the pointer to the module structure > > > > in the register_driver call. > > > > > > > > Does this provide for that? I'm thinking it does, but it's not the > > > > "name" that is the issue here. > > > > > > Wait, no, you really do want the name, don't you. You refer to > > > "module.0" to get the module structure pointer (if I'm reading the code > > > right), but as you have that pointer already, why can't you just use > > > module->name there as well as you have a pointer to a valid module > > > structure that has the name already embedded in it. > > > > In digging further, it's used by the pci code to call into lower layers, > > but why it's using a different string other than the module name string > > is beyond me. Looks like this goes way back before git was around, and > > odds are it's my fault for something I wrote a long time ago. > > > > I'll see if I can just change the driver core to not need a name at all, > > and pull it from the module which would make all of this go away in the > > end. Odds are something will break but who knows... > > Nope, things break, the "name" is there to handle built-in modules (as > the module pointer will be NULL.) > > So what you really want is not the module->name (as I don't think that > will be set), but you want KBUILD_MODNAME which the build system sets. That's correct, and the reason why I pass through this name argument. Sorry I wasn't able to reply earlier to save you some time. > You shouldn't need to pass the name through all of the subsystems here, > just rely on the build system instead. > > Or does the Rust side not have KBUILD_MODNAME? AFAIK, it doesn't (or didn't have at the time I wrote the patch). @Miguel: Can we access KBUILD_MODNAME conveniently? > > thanks, > > greg k-h
