[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101115191955.GA17342@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:19:55 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arnd@...db.de, benh@...nel.crashing.org, cmetcalf@...era.com,
davem@...emloft.net, deller@....de, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
hpa@...or.com, jejb@...isc-linux.org, kyle@...artin.ca,
mingo@...e.hu, roland@...hat.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: +
exec_domain-establish-a-linux32-domain-on-config_compat-systems.patc
h added to -mm tree
On 11/15, David Daney wrote:
>
> On 11/13/2010 09:17 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>>> We can avoid the failed module loading overhead by building-in the
>>> linux32_exec_domain for systems that have CONFIG_COMPAT.
>>
>> Indeed. But at the same time this means it is not possible to use
>> personality-8.ko if the system has it.
>
> Well in the same way it is not possible to use personality-0.ko
> (PER_LINUX) because it is just as built-in.
Sure, but this was never possible. But your patch adds the obvious
user-visible change.
>> Don't get me wrong, I have no idea why anyone could want this module,
>> just I am a bit worried.
>
> If the personality is built-in, then I don't see how it makes any sense
> to attempt to override it with an externally supplied version. If you
> want set a domain for PER_LINUX32, don't configure you system to supply
> a default version.
Well, no need to convince me ;) To me, this request_module() doesn't
make any sense at all.
I won't argue against this change. Just I wanted to be sure this
issue is not overlooked.
Oleg.
--
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