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: <3949011.nZfu3g41l4@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Sat, 18 May 2013 01:40:27 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, patches@...aro.org,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robin.randhawa@....com,
	Steve.Bannister@....com, Liviu.Dudau@....com,
	charles.garcia-tobin@....com, arvind.chauhan@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.10-rc2

On Friday, May 17, 2013 07:22:05 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17 May 2013 17:46, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:13:37 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> On 17 May 2013 02:21, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >> > While I kind of understand why you want [3/3] to go into 3.10, I'm wondering
> >> > about the other two patches.  Why exactly are they needed now?
> >>
> >> First one:
> >>
> >>   cpufreq: Add EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL for have_governor_per_policy
> >>
> >> is required so that governors can be compiled as module. Otherwise they
> >> may break.. I haven't tried that but I believe that is the case.
> >
> > Did you try to build them as modules?
> 
> That's what: "I haven't tried that but I believe that is the case."..
> Modules need variables to be exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
> to be used by them.. And I thought this is pretty straight forward.

Well, I actually meant "can you please verify your belief?". :-)

And that's because I'm wondering why the zero-day build testing doesn't
catch this problem.  Apparently, it doesn't build .configs with cpufreq
governors configured as modules, although I believe it does test
"make allmodconfig" for a couple of architectures at least.  What gives?

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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ