* Andi Kleen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 08:46:48AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > * Andi Kleen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > +config IMMEDIATE > > > > + default y if !DISABLE_IMMEDIATE > > > > > > It's still unclear to me why DISABLE_IMMEDIATE is needed. It would > > > be better to make it just the default. > > > > > > > It is actually the default on any non embedded configuration. Do you > > think we should make it default to on on embedded configs too ? > > I would prefer to not have any config options at all and let > the non converted architectures always use a asm-generic fallback. > > > The idea here is to give embedded system developers incentives to > > create an optimized immediate value header for their architecture. I > > Sounds like a quite bogus way to do this. > > > fear that if it is not trivial to disable when they need to use ROM to > > put the kernel code (as kprobes is, meaning, with a single config > > option), they will refuse to event think about including an optimized > > immediate value header for their architecture. > > #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_SPECIFIC_READONLY > #include <asm-generic/generic-immediate.h> > #else > /* optimized implementation */ > #endif > > That's trivial. >
Yeah, but then you would make immediate.o an obj-y (both for kernel/Makefile and arch/*/kernel/Makefile) and it would be built even on systems that would be configured not to use immediate values. Therefore, it would compile-in unused code if we do as you propose, which I am reluctant to do on embedded systems where code size matters. Mathieu > > And yes, having a CONFIG_READ_ONLY_TEXT makes sense, but it implies > > menu dependencies with not only immediate values but also kprobes, > > paravirt, alternatives, (am I missing others ?) > > paravirt and alternatives are x86 only. > > I don't think CONFIG_READ_ONLY_TEXT on x86 makes sense. > > On other architectures they have to deal with kprobes, but they > presumably do this already. Not really your problem I suspect. > > > > As long as we find a way for people to disable _all_ code patching in > > their kernel, I'm happy with that. But since every existing code > > patching mechanism can currently be disabled one by one, it makes sense > > to do the same for the immediate values. Having a global > > CONFIG_READ_ONLY_TEXT should IMHO come in a separate effort. > > You're clearly deep into overdesign territory here. > > -Andi -- Mathieu Desnoyers Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/