From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751627AbWDYWdk (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:33:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751578AbWDYWdk (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:33:40 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:30188 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751483AbWDYWdj (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:33:39 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Assert notifier_block and notifier_call are not in init section From: Chandra Seetharaman Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com To: Linus Torvalds Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, herbert@13thfloor.at, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, Alan Stern In-Reply-To: References: <20060425023509.7529.84752.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20060425023527.7529.9096.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <1145991663.16539.8.camel@linuxchandra> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: IBM Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:33:36 -0700 Message-Id: <1146004416.16539.11.camel@linuxchandra> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 12:16 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > > > Two questions: > > 1) related to this patch: Do you want me to generate a patch that > > asserts only notifier calls ? > > I don't really have any strong preferences. It seems a bit strange that > we'd do it for notifiers but not for other people. It might be better to > try to build it into the build system itself, and get it through the > _normal_ "section checking". I 'll hold off for now then. > > One way to do that would be to make the "register_notifier()" thing just > create this dummy asm() that just puts the arguments into a section that > doesn't even get loaded, but that cna be checked. > > > 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 ? > > No, the code section is re-used, it's just never re-used for any other > code (since we don't generate code on the fly). So if you pass in a > function pointer, you know that if it's in the init section, it means that > init-code that was discarded. > > But if you pass in a data pointer, you'll never know if it's a data > pointer to the original init-code section, or if it was a data pointer > that was just dynamically allocated after the init-code section was freed. Thanks for the clarification. > > > PS: I fixed my mailer to put my name. sorry about that. > > Looks good. > > Linus -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------