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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:45:54 -0600 From: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> 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 12/28/2012 05:01 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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. I'll send it shortly. >> 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. It appears not to be possible. I don't know enough about to kmake to understand why it is forcing a new module. Perhaps some expert knows what Kconfig or Makefile magic will prevent that. Larry -- 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