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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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/