From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761869AbXIXRxG (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:53:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756958AbXIXRwz (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:52:55 -0400 Received: from tomts25.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.188]:64601 "EHLO tomts25-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756139AbXIXRwz (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:52:55 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:52:52 -0400 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Christoph Hellwig , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/7] Seq_file add support for sorted list Message-ID: <20070924175252.GA28347@Krystal> References: <20070924164950.006047409@polymtl.ca> <20070924165426.841607414@polymtl.ca> <20070924173759.GA1608@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070924173759.GA1608@infradead.org> X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080 X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.21.3-grsec (i686) X-Uptime: 13:47:48 up 56 days, 18:06, 6 users, load average: 1.53, 1.20, 1.45 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Christoph Hellwig (hch@infradead.org) wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 12:49:51PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > Add support for sorted list in seq_file. It aims at changing the way > > /proc/modules and kallsyms iterates on the module list to remove a race between > > module unload and module/symbol listing. > > > > The list is sorted by ascending list_head pointer address. > > While I think we really want this patch I don't quite see how it's > related to the markers. I think patch 1 and 2 stand on their own. > As they are currently implemented, the markers use the sorted module list for marker listing, but I can change their implementation so they do not require this (and make it a subsequent patch instead). I could do that to diminish the patchset size a little more. However, it implies using an interface with a known race condition. Could we just post this as two different patchsets instead ? I really think the sorted module list would be important to get in and I don't like to use buggy unfixed lower level functions. Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68