Re: samples: livepatch: init reloc list and mark as klp module

[Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>]

+++ Josh Poimboeuf [10/11/15 07:50 -0600]:
>On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:15:54AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 11/10/2015, 05:45 AM, Jessica Yu wrote:
>> > Intialize the list of relocation sections in the sample
>> > klp_object (even if the list will be empty in this case).
>> > Also mark module as a livepatch module so that the module
>> > loader can appropriately initialize it.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>
>> > ---
>> >  samples/livepatch/livepatch-sample.c | 2 ++
>> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-sample.c b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-sample.c
>> > index fb8c861..2ef9345 100644
>> > --- a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-sample.c
>> > +++ b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-sample.c
>> > @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ static struct klp_object objs[] = {
>> >  	{
>> >  		/* name being NULL means vmlinux */
>> >  		.funcs = funcs,
>> > +		.reloc_secs = LIST_HEAD_INIT(objs[0].reloc_secs)
>>
>> And I see now. This is not the best place for it though. I would put
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD in the core code instead.
>
>Maybe the reloc_secs list should instead be an array of klp_reloc_sec
>structs, with the last entry being 0, similar to how we do other "lists"
>in the klp interface (e.g., klp_patch.objs, klp_object.funcs).

Yeah, I admit the asymmetry is a bit awkward. Plus we can add in a
klp_for_each_reloc_sec to keep the api consistent. I'll go ahead and
change this to follow the existing klp "list" format.

Jessica