Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] modules: sysfs - export: taint, address, size | Date | Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:14:14 +1030 |
| |
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:44:52 +0100, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 08:27, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > > The else here is weird. Shouldn't we leave the exclusion elsewhere? > > You mean the 'else if ... TAINT_OOT_MODULE'? It's a one-to-one copy > of the current code, which just moved up a bit. > > Disconnect the two flags form each other?
Yes, I think so.
> > This copies a past mistake, and is definitely wrong. Either expose both > > pointers and sizes, or don't include init_size here. Sure, it'll > > normally be 0, but if not it's confusing... > > Ah, good to know, mod->init_size is 0 for all modules here, so we > should just drop mod->init_size and maybe name the 'size' attribute to > 'coresize'?
If a module is still initializing, mod->init_size may well be non-zero. Let's rename it to coresize, and add initsize.
> > But the bigger question is: Why are we exposing these sizes? > > /proc/modules did since 2.2, or before, but that doesn't make it the > > best option... > > Good question, I doubt it is too useful, it's just that 'lsmod' shows > it, so we wanted to show too.
And breaking lsmod output might kill some scripts. So it stays.
Let's drop the address stuff though.
We can actually do something more radical: we could change the kernel to call modprobe to resolve unresolved symbols. We already support symbol:<symbol> for symbol_request().
This means that modprobe still needs to maintain a sym->mod mapping (though I would argue depmod should be moved into the kernel source), but not any dependency mapping.
Thanks, Rusty. -- 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/
| |