linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] perf/x86/uncore: modularize Intel uncore driver

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]

Date:	Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:01:34 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>
To:	"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	mingo@...nel.org, acme@...radead.org, eranian@...gle.com,
	andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] perf/x86/uncore: modularize Intel uncore driver

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014, Yan, Zheng wrote:

> This patch adds support for building Intel uncore driver as module.
> It adds clean-up code and config option for the Intel uncore driver

so just curious, after all this time why are we suddenly making 
modularizable perf pmu drivers?

Will other pmus be modularized, or is the uncore a special case?

I'm not necessarily against the idea, it's just it's tricky enough as it 
is trying to help people with uncore pmu issues and now I will have to add 
"make sure the relevant kernel module is loaded" to the list of things 
that could be going wrong.

Vince
--
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/