[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOssrKeJis7En48+c2rbxj5FVQgnrfB7ucmwfe55jDW_tttytQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 15:33:56 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] VFS: Introduce a mount context
> That's why I liked the static string thing. It's just one assignment
> and no worries about freeing. Not sure what to do about modules,
> though. Can we somehow move the cost of checking the validity to the
> place where the error is retrieved?
I'm thinking along the lines of not allowing module virtual addresses
to be recycled after module remove...
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists