#include <linux/fs.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/proc_fs.h>
#include <linux/seq_file.h>
#include <linux/utsname.h>
static int version_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
{
seq_printf(m, linux_proc_banner,
utsname()->sysname,
utsname()->release,
utsname()->version);
return 0;
}
static int version_proc_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
{
return single_open(file, version_proc_show, NULL);
}
static const struct file_operations version_proc_fops = {
.open = version_proc_open,
.read = seq_read,
.llseek = seq_lseek,
.release = single_release,
};
static int __init proc_version_init(void)
{
proc_create("version", 0, NULL, &version_proc_fops);
return 0;
}
fs_initcall(proc_version_init);-
由 Paul Gortmaker 提交于
PROC_FS is a bool, so this code is either present or absent. 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 ugly at best. 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 these registrations 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 vmcore_init as an initcall. Signed-off-by: NPaul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
abaf3787
