linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix problem with cpufreq_pndemand or cpufreq

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: <3226192.H2BxHSuKio@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:01:16 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
Cc:	viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix problem with cpufreq_pndemand or cpufreq_conservative

On Friday, December 28, 2012 04:17:24 PM Larry Finger wrote:
> Since commit 2aacdff entitled "cpufreq: Move common part from governors to 
> separate file", whenever the drivers that depend on this new file 
> (cpufreq_ondemand or cpufreq_conservative) are built as modules, a new module 
> named cpufreq_governor is created. It seems that kmake is smart enough to create 
> a separate module whenever more than one module includes the same object file. 
> As drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c contains no MODULE directives, the 
> resulting module has no license specified, which results in logging of a "module 
> license 'unspecified' taints kernel". In addition, a number of globals are 
> exported GPL only, and are therefore not available.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
> ---
> 
> This particular patch is the simplest possible; however, it hides the intent. I 
> have prepared the longer version that makes the reason clearer by adding a new 
> configuration variable that is dependent on the other two, and rearranges 
> drivers/cpufreq/Makefile. That version could be submitted if that is what is 
> desired.

Yes, please.

> The changes to cpufreq_governor.c are the same as in this version.

I wonder if that's avoidable?  The intention is not to create an additional
module, clearly.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/