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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox