Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:42:00 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r215544 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <201011191642.00761.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim5=fXFojYehimtW9B9GDn6hw0U-00E02tDfFCh@mail.gmail.com> References: <201011191943.oAJJhv3i087205@svn.freebsd.org> <201011191617.51552.jhb@freebsd.org> <AANLkTim5=fXFojYehimtW9B9GDn6hw0U-00E02tDfFCh@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, November 19, 2010 4:27:27 pm Attilio Rao wrote: > 2010/11/19 John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>: > > On Friday, November 19, 2010 2:43:57 pm Attilio Rao wrote: > >> Author: attilio > >> Date: Fri Nov 19 19:43:56 2010 > >> New Revision: 215544 > >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/215544 > >> > >> Log: > >> Scan the list in reverse order for the shutdown handlers of loaded modules. > >> This way, when there is a dependency between two modules, the handler of the > >> latter probed runs first. > >> > >> This is a similar approach as the modules are unloaded in the same > >> linkerfile. > >> > >> Sponsored by: Sandvine Incorporated > >> Submitted by: Nima Misaghian <nmisaghian at sandvine dot com> > >> MFC after: 1 week > >> > >> Modified: > >> head/sys/kern/kern_module.c > >> > >> Modified: head/sys/kern/kern_module.c > >> ============================================================================== > >> --- head/sys/kern/kern_module.c Fri Nov 19 18:59:35 2010 (r215543) > >> +++ head/sys/kern/kern_module.c Fri Nov 19 19:43:56 2010 (r215544) > >> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ __FBSDID("$FreeBSD$"); > >> > >> static MALLOC_DEFINE(M_MODULE, "module", "module data structures"); > >> > >> -typedef TAILQ_HEAD(, module) modulelist_t; > >> +typedef TAILQ_HEAD(modulelst, module) modulelist_t; > > > > Is modulelist already taken? If not, we should probably just retire > > 'modulelist_t' and replace it with 'struct modulelist'. > > Note that I used modulelst, not modulelist. > Probabilly, if you think the name may be still confusing, we can > pickup one another further. Yes, I'd much prefer 'modulelist' with the extra 'i' as it is more readable. If you go that route, I think you can drop modulelist_t since style(9) discourages foo_t types unless they are required by a standard. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201011191642.00761.jhb>