[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140924114814.GE28823@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:48:15 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
Alex Williamson <Alex.Williamson@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm-vfio: do not use module_init
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:45:53PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 24/09/2014 13:44, Will Deacon ha scritto:
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:29:09PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> /me got confused between the kernel and QEMU. In the kernel, you can
> >> only have one module_init function, and it will prevent unloading the
> >> module unless you also have the corresponding module_exit function.
> >
> > Happy for you to take the blame, but I think this one's my fault!
>
> That's why you were CCed! ;)
>
> >> So, commit 80ce1639727e (KVM: VFIO: register kvm_device_ops dynamically,
> >> 2014-09-02) broke unloading of the kvm module, by adding a module_init
> >> function and no module_exit.
> >
> > I forget kvm builds as a module for other architectures (ie. not arm/arm64).
> >
> >> Repair it by making kvm_vfio_ops_init weak, and checking it in
> >> kvm_init.
> >
> > Hehe, if only there was a kconfig option for kvm-vfio.c...
>
> Yeah, I was tempted to put it back. What do you think?
I think it's nicer than the __weak symbol and I don't see a downside to
having the option (the reason for removing it was lack of users, which
lasted a couple of hours).
Will
--
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