On Thursday 10 January 2008 02:24:40 Paulo Marques wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Or better, rework all the name lookup interfaces, rather than having:
>
> Yes, there is some rework we can do here
Hi Paulo,
Yes, it just needs some thought...
> > extern int sprint_symbol(char *buff
Rusty Russell wrote:
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 11:21:59 Andrew Morton wrote:
[...]
And the fact that incoming arg `namebuf' MUST point at a
KSYM_NAME_LEN-sized buffer could be better communicated by using a
dedicated struct for this, or by giving the arg a type of `char
namebuf[KSYM_NAME_LEN]
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:27:59 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I assume you've
> > > queued these because you're thinking of applying them before 2.6.24? I'd
> > > say only
> > > modules-de-mutex-more-symbol-lookup-paths-in-the-module-code.patch
> > > warrants that (the other i
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 14:33:50 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:20:18 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 January 2008 11:21:59 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > The string handling in here has become a bit scruffy.
> >
> > Yes, that patch also evokes a c
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:20:18 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 January 2008 11:21:59 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The string handling in here has become a bit scruffy.
>
> Yes, that patch also evokes a const warning. Fixed below.
No patch was included.
> I assume you
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 11:21:59 Andrew Morton wrote:
> The string handling in here has become a bit scruffy.
Yes, that patch also evokes a const warning. Fixed below. I assume you've
queued these because you're thinking of applying them before 2.6.24? I'd say
only modules-de-mutex-more-sy
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:50:06 +1100
Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 January 2008 22:33:23 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > +/* FIXME: Risky: returns a pointer into a module w/o lock */
> >
> > stupid question: since module unloads are s
* Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 January 2008 02:51:19 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > cool :-)
> >
> > finally we have a _really_ sane symbols subsystem. Kudos :)
>
> Actually, the interface is horribly scattered. It'd be nice for
> someone to go through and look at what th
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 02:51:19 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> cool :-)
>
> finally we have a _really_ sane symbols subsystem. Kudos :)
Actually, the interface is horribly scattered. It'd be nice for someone to go
through and look at what the minimum we actually need is and come up with a
system to
* Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 January 2008 22:33:23 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > +/* FIXME: Risky: returns a pointer into a module w/o lock */
> >
> > stupid question: since module unloads are so rare, why isnt this via
> >
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:28:04PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> De-mutex more symbol lookup paths in the module code
>
> Kyle McMartin reports sysrq_timer_list_show() can hit the module
> mutex; these paths don't need to though, since we long ago changed all
> the module list manipulation to occu
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 22:33:23 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +/* FIXME: Risky: returns a pointer into a module w/o lock */
>
> stupid question: since module unloads are so rare, why isnt this via the
> same mechanism that CPU hotplug uses to securely unreg
* Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +/* FIXME: Risky: returns a pointer into a module w/o lock */
stupid question: since module unloads are so rare, why isnt this via the
same mechanism that CPU hotplug uses to securely unregister CPUs? I.e.
quiet all CPUs, disable irqs on all of them
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 20:17:42 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> (Rusty Cc:-ed)
>
> * Kyle McMartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > handle_sysrq can be called from interrupt context.
> > sysrq_timer_list_show eventually starts poking at module symbols which
> > take the module mutex.
> >
> > so instead, let
(Rusty Cc:-ed)
* Kyle McMartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> handle_sysrq can be called from interrupt context.
> sysrq_timer_list_show eventually starts poking at module symbols which
> take the module mutex.
>
> so instead, let's just kick off a workqueue.
>
> [ doesn't happen on my laptop
handle_sysrq can be called from interrupt context. sysrq_timer_list_show
eventually starts poking at module symbols which take the module mutex.
so instead, let's just kick off a workqueue.
[ doesn't happen on my laptop with the keyboard, but does when
triggered from /proc/sysrq-trigger ]
Sign
16 matches
Mail list logo
