From af52b040eba5e6982d8665af8cd4dd69a466d5c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Gortmaker Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 15:48:46 -0800 Subject: fs/ramfs: don't use module_init for non-modular core code The ramfs is always built in. It will never be modular, so using module_init as an alias for __initcall is rather misleading. Fix this up now, so that we can relocate module_init from init.h into module.h in the future. If we don't do this, we'd have to add module.h to obviously non-modular code, and that would be a worse thing. Note that direct use of __initcall is discouraged, vs. one of the priority categorized subgroups. As __initcall gets mapped onto device_initcall, our use of fs_initcall (which makes sense for fs code) will thus change this registration from level 6-device to level 5-fs (i.e. slightly earlier). However no observable impact of that small difference has been observed during testing, or is expected. Also note that this change uncovers a missing semicolon bug in the registration of the initcall. Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- fs/ramfs/inode.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'fs/ramfs') diff --git a/fs/ramfs/inode.c b/fs/ramfs/inode.c index 39d14659a8d3..6a3e2c420180 100644 --- a/fs/ramfs/inode.c +++ b/fs/ramfs/inode.c @@ -275,4 +275,4 @@ int __init init_ramfs_fs(void) return err; } -module_init(init_ramfs_fs) +fs_initcall(init_ramfs_fs); -- cgit v1.2.3-59-g8ed1b