From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, akpm@osdl.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, herbert@13thfloor.at,
linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Assert notifier_block and notifier_call are not in init section
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:01:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1145991663.16539.8.camel@linuxchandra> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604241945570.3701@g5.osdl.org>
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 19:47 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, sekharan@us.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> > Feel free to drop this patch if you think it is not needed.
>
> It's incorrect.
>
> The init section will be free'd, and as a result can be re-allocated to
> other uses. Thus testing that data is not in the init-section makes no
> sense.
>
> Testing for _code_ not being in the init section can be sensible, since
> code never gets re-allocated (modulo module code, but that's never in the
> init section). So checking the "notifier_call" part may be sensible, but
> checking the notifier block data pointer definitely is not.
Two questions:
1) related to this patch: Do you want me to generate a patch that
asserts only notifier calls ?
2) Unrelated to this patch: If the _code_ section is never reallocated
or reused, what is the purpose of putting _code_ in the init section ?
Only to make sure that the init calls are called in order ?
Thanks
chandra
PS: I fixed my mailer to put my name. sorry about that.
>
> Patches 1-2 applied.
>
> Linus
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-04-25 19:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-04-25 2:35 [PATCH 0/3] Fix for the bug reported by Herbert on 2.6.17-rc2 sekharan
2006-04-25 2:35 ` [PATCH 1/3] Remove __devinitdata from notifier block definitions sekharan
2006-04-25 2:35 ` [PATCH 2/3] Remove __devinit and __cpuinit from notifier_call definitions sekharan
2006-04-25 2:35 ` [PATCH 3/3] Assert notifier_block and notifier_call are not in init section sekharan
2006-04-25 2:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-25 2:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-25 19:01 ` Chandra Seetharaman [this message]
2006-04-25 19:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-25 20:26 ` Alan Stern
2006-04-25 20:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-25 20:54 ` Randy.Dunlap
2006-04-25 22:33 ` Chandra Seetharaman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1145991663.16539.8.camel@linuxchandra \
--to=sekharan@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=herbert@13thfloor.at \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.