linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] add i386 idle notifier (take 3)

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]

Message-ID: <20070105133653.GS20714@stusta.de>
Date:	Fri, 5 Jan 2007 14:36:53 +0100
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@....hp.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ak@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add i386 idle notifier (take 3)

On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:55:14AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Adrian,
> 
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 12:07:08AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > I am hearing conflicting opinions on this one.
> > > 
> > > Perfmon is a fairly big patch. It is hard to take it as one. I have tried to
> > > split it up in smaller, more manageable pieces as requested by top-level
> > > maintainers. This process implies that I supply small patches which may not
> > > necessarily have users just yet.
> > 
> > There should be a big patchset consisting of manageable pieces, if 
> > possible all of it in -mm.
> 
> I have already split up the pieces: generic vs. per-arch. I have also
> divided it between modified vs. new files. It becomes harder to go
> much beyond that without creating also one patch per modified file.

That's not my point.

My point is that while big changes should come in manageable pieces, 
it's also important to have the whole.

Is there any reason against getting all your patches into -mm?

> > > > The unused x86-64 idle notifiers are now bloating the kernel since 
> > > > nearly one year.
> > > > 
> > > > > > And why does it bloat the kernel with EXPORT_SYMBOL's although even your 
> > > > > > perfmon-new-base-061204 doesn't seem to add any modular user?
> > > > > 
> > > > Where does the perfmon code use the EXPORT_SYMBOL's?
> > > 
> > > The perfmon patch includes several kernel modules which make use of
> > > the exported entry points. The following symbols are exported:
> > > 
> > > pfm_pmu_register/pfm_pmu_unregister:
> > > 	* PMU description module registration.
> > > 	* Used to describe PMU model.
> > > 	* Used by perfmon_p4.c, perfmon_core.c, perfmon_mckinley.c, and others
> > > 
> > > pfm_fmt_register/pfm_fmt_unregister:
> > > 	* Sampling format module registration
> > > 	* Used by perfmon_dfl_smpl.c, perfmon_pebs_smpl.c
> > > 
> > > pfm_interrupt_handler:
> > > 	* PMU interrupt handler
> > > 	* Used by MIPS-specific perfmon code
> > > 
> > > pfm_pmu_conf/pfm_controls:
> > > 	* global state/control variable
> > > 
> > > All exported symbols are currently used. Why are you saying this adds bloat?
> > 
> > Which module uses idle_notifier_register/idle_notifier_unregister?
> > 
> None.
> 
> I have no issue with removing the EXPORT_SYMBOL on i386 and x86_64 if you
> think that would help.

OK, thanks.

> -Stephane

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/