From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756667AbZBRXxT (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:53:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753311AbZBRXxI (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:53:08 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:57780 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753114AbZBRXxG (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:53:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:52:31 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Ivan Kokshaysky Cc: hch@infradead.org, rth@twiddle.net, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] alpha: binfmt_aout fix Message-Id: <20090218155231.8b8c8b9f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090217114054.GA26176@jurassic.park.msu.ru> References: <20090217104956.GC25856@jurassic.park.msu.ru> <20090217110842.GA22272@infradead.org> <20090217114054.GA26176@jurassic.park.msu.ru> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:40:56 +0300 Ivan Kokshaysky wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 06:08:42AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I think the proper fix for this is to make sure newly registered > > binfmts are added to the tail of the list, not the front. > > Yes, I was thinking about that. But then I need to make sure > that alpha binfmt_loader is registered first, which is not > possible at the moment as binfmts get registered at core_initcall > level. > If it's acceptable to change binfmts initcall level to, say, > fs_initcall, then changing list_add() to list_add_tail() would > certainly work fine here. > It would make sense to register the core, default handlers first and to permit arch-specific handlers to then override (or to front-end) the core handlers. But that sounds a bit risky for 2.6.29. Is this fix needed in 2.6.29? If so, perhaps we should merge version 1 as a temporary thing. But if so, please let's not do the temporary-thing-which-hangs-around-forever thing?