Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:07:54 +0100 | From | Jessica Yu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] static_call: Fix static_call_update() sanity check |
| |
+++ Steven Rostedt [19/03/21 14:00 -0400]: >On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:57:38 +0100 >Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > >> Jessica, can you explain how !MODULE_UNLOAD is supposed to work? >> Alternatives, jump_labels and static_call all can have relocations into >> __exit code. Not loading it at all would be BAD. > >According to the description: > >" Without this option you will not be able to unload any > modules (note that some modules may not be unloadable anyway), which > makes your kernel smaller, faster and simpler. > If unsure, say Y." > >Seems there's no reason to load the "exit" portion, as that's what makes it >"smaller".
Exactly. If you disable MODULE_UNLOAD, then you don't intend to ever unload any modules, and so you'll never end up calling the module's cleanup/exit function. That code would basically be never used, so that's why it's not loaded in the first place.
| |