linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block2mtd lockdep_init

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:	Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:34:25 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Cc:	Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block2mtd lockdep_init_map warning


On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 11:20 +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Mon, 7 January 2008 11:05:26 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > Would something like this work for people?
> 
> Looks a lot better than what I thought of.  However, does the #ifdef
> within is_module_address() make sense when afaict lockdep is the only
> caller of that function?  Looks as if the whole function should be made
> conditional or none of it.

Ah, I hadn't bothered to check if there were more users. /me does a (not
so quick) git grep and finds lockdep is indeed the only caller. Sure, we
can move the whole function into the ifdef.


--
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/