lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-03-22 14:17    [W:0.107 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site