[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190617201850.010a4cf6@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:18:50 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Matt Mullins <mmullins@...com>, 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, 17 Jun 2019 16:27:33 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> 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.
So Arnd did find a bug. Just the wrong solution ;-)
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists