Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:17:24 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: kobject.c changes in -mm |
| |
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 09:56:32PM +0000, Frederik Deweerdt wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 12:31:56PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 07:25:07PM +0000, Frederik Deweerdt wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 11:09:42AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 01:37:47PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > --- linux-2.6.20-rc3/lib/kobject.c 2007-01-01 23:04:49.000000000 -0800 > > > > > +++ devel/lib/kobject.c 2007-01-04 21:13:21.000000000 -0800 > > > > > @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ > > > > > #include <linux/module.h> > > > > > #include <linux/stat.h> > > > > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > > > > +#include <linux/kallsyms.h> > > > > > +#include <asm-generic/sections.h> > > > > > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 > > > > > +static int ptr_in_range(void *ptr, void *start, void *end) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * This should hopefully get rid of causing warnings > > > > > + * if the architecture did not set one of the section > > > > > + * variables up. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (start >= end) > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > + > > > > > + if ((ptr >= start) && (ptr < end)) > > > > > + return 1; > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone explain WTF is going on here? Including asm-generic headers > > > > > in core code definitly is not okay. As are random CONFIG_X86_32 ifdefs > > > > > in said code. > > > > > > > > It's a hack for debugging. See the full patch at: > > > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/gregkh-2.6/patches/driver/warn-when-statically-allocated-kobjects-are-used.patch > > > > > > > > It is never going to go to mainline, due to the arch-specific hacks as > > > > you have noted. But is good to have for debugging and getting error > > > > reports from users of -mm. > > > > > > > Could a CONFIG_{MM,HACK} option be added for this kind of hacks? It could > > > help clarify what the aim of the code is. > > > > How would that help here? I don't think we want to #ifdef all patches > > in the -mm tree that are of this type, that would be a bit nasty. > I see how this would be messy, but this could help advertising the fact > that the patch is not going to mainline, if only because mainline wouldn't > have that CONFIG_HACK thing. > Another alternative would a mm-only- prefix to the name of the patches, > a simple grep in broken-out would the be enough...
That's a good idea, I can rename some of these patches...
thanks,
greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |