[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080730021947.def99edc.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:19:47 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for July 29
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:06:50 +0200 Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de> wrote:
> * Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> [2008-07-29 21:48]:
> > > Isn't this the opposite end of the same problem for which Bernhard
> > > has been repeatedly trying to find a taker for his patch:
> > >
> > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.kexec/1882
> >
> > Yes. It's not the kobject patch at fault here, it's the use of kobjects
> > so early in the boot process. That needs to be fixed.
It was a bit optimistic to stick an unconditional GFP_KERNEL allocation
into the previously-atomic kobject_init().
It's only 128 bytes, so why can't we fix both problems thusly?
--- a/lib/kobject.c~a
+++ a/lib/kobject.c
@@ -38,12 +38,10 @@ static int ptr_in_range(void *ptr, void
static void verify_dynamic_kobject_allocation(struct kobject *kobj)
{
- char *namebuf;
+ char namebuf[KSYM_NAME_LEN];
const char *ret;
- namebuf = kzalloc(KSYM_NAME_LEN, GFP_KERNEL);
- ret = kallsyms_lookup((unsigned long)kobj, NULL, NULL, NULL,
- namebuf);
+ ret = kallsyms_lookup((unsigned long)kobj, NULL, NULL, NULL, namebuf);
/*
* This is the X86_32-only part of this function.
* This is here because it is valid to have a kobject
@@ -63,7 +61,7 @@ static void verify_dynamic_kobject_alloc
/* dump_stack(); */
pr_debug("---- end silly warning ----\n");
out:
- kfree(namebuf);
+ return;
}
#else
static void verify_dynamic_kobject_allocation(struct kobject *kobj) { }
_
> Yes, but if somebody could tell me why nobody takes the patch, I would
> be happy. Then I would be able to improve the patch. :)
Copy me on the patch. Then I merge it and people know there will be no
hiding from it.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists