[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090818050637.4C3E74730F@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
"linux-parisc" <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel segv with 2.6.31-rc6 ?
> I'd be happy to fail to load it. There might be sysfs issues with it too.
That sounds reasonable to me. And I'd be happy to at least look a little
and maybe give some advice to anybody who finds themself building such a
(free) module, doesn't know why or how it got that way, and wants to ask.
> No, the real problem is that it ignores failure. I'd much rather fail
> the module load than various features mysteriously MIA.
In that regard, I just made add_notes_attrs() follow the model of
add_sect_attrs(), which (gracefully) ignores all its failures. I don't
know what the thought behind that was. My only guess was that since this
is all CONFIG_KALLSYMS-only features, that someone thought turning on
CONFIG_KALLSYMS should not add new ways to lose that weren't there before,
only new ways to lose the new features that weren't there before either.
Having these other alloc/sysfs failures cause the module load to fail would
certainly be fine with me.
Thanks,
Roland
--
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