Re: [unused symbol] need to use init_mm

Eric Lacombe
2009-05-02T18:06:19Z

Le vendredi 1 mai 2009 17:51:30 Mel Gorman, vous avez écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 07:55:54PM +0200, Eric Lacombe wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote :
> > > * Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:32:04PM +0200, Eric Lacombe wrote:

[...]

> If it's the kernel portion of the address space is what you care about,
> is current->mm->pgd usable?

Not currently, because this one is precisely compared to init_mm.pgd.

[...]

> > > > 4. When do you think the module will be ready for posting? i.e. is
> > > > this really something destined for mainline or some
> > > > perma-out-of-tree?
> >
> > It is destined for mainline as far as I'm concerned. But it needs to be
> > accepted by the kernel community when it will be ready.
> > (I work for a french public laboratory, so it will be GPL 2 or 3 licensed
> > anyway)
>
> If it really is absolutly necessary that you have init_mm and the
> alternatives really are too ugly, patch 1 of your set becomes a
> re-export of init_mm. The leader of that patch should explain why the
> alternatives to init_mm suck.
>
> You can try posting a patch to export init_mm without an in-tree user but
> I wouldn't bet money on the x86 maintainers picking it up without an
> extremely compelling reason.

Thanks for your comments. I recently thought about an alternative that seems
to be acceptable.
Nonetheless, I need to modify my security paradigm a little, but this one will
still be correct. Besides, no ugliness ;)

Best regards,

Eric