[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQKCeHrq+bf4DceH7+ihpq+q-V+bFOiF-TpYjekH7dPA0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:27:33 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Matt Mullins <mmullins@...com>
Cc: "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin Lau <kafai@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: hide do_bpf_send_signal when unused
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:13 PM Matt Mullins <mmullins@...com> wrote:
> >
> > The bug (really just a warning) reported is exactly here.
>
> I don't think bpf_send_signal is tied to modules at all;
> send_signal_irq_work_init and the corresponding initcall should be
> moved outside that #ifdef.
right. I guess send_signal_irq_work_init was accidentally placed
after bpf_event_init and happened to be within that ifdef.
Should definitely be outside.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists