linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel: trace: remove __init from race_selftest_startup_function() and trace_selftest_startup_function

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:22:15 +0800
From:	Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: trace: remove __init from race_selftest_startup_function()
 and trace_selftest_startup_function_graph()

On 07/16/2013 12:20 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:12 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> 
>> > Hello Frederic and Ingo:
> Are you trying to go around me? I wrote this code and I'm one of the
> maintainers for it. Your issue is very minor, and can wait till other
> things get done first.
> 
> You said my previous patch fixed your problem, right? Then I'll add your
> tested by and push it in due course.
> 
> I'll also get around to adding __init's to other functions too. But it
> is *very* low on the totem pole of importance.
> 

I only provide my suggestions (or recommendations) which I think might
be useful for us, and I don't care about whether you accept or not.

If you want discuss, we can continue, if you won't (now, I guess so),
you can just provide your choice is OK.

>> > 
>> > Could you provide your suggestions or completions for it ?
>> > 
>> > The trace_selftest_startup_* funcitons are mostly added by you without
>> > '__init', do you have additional considerations about it (intend to have
>> > no '__init') ?
>> > 
>> > If no reply, I recommend to keep no '__init': apply this patch or
>> > regress part of the patch "f1ed7c7 ftrace: Do not run selftest if
>> > command line parameter is set" (at least, it can avoid related warnings
>> > and treat all *selftest* fair).
> It's a compile time warning that's a false positive. Not a run time
> crash or other issue of importance. It can wait, relax. Otherwise you
> are starting to become annoying.

At least this patch is not 'urgent' (not a run time crash, or other
issue of 'urgent'), but every members have their own opinions to treat
this issue whether 'important' or not ('important' != 'urgent').

And every members' time resources are expensive (not only you, but also
me, and other members).

When I got none-reply, I don't know what happened (whether you agree, or
not, what I said correct or incorrect ?), it is a polite to give a
confirmation reply to tell whether you accept or not.


Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/