From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jon Masters <jcm@jonmasters.org>, Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] Markers Support for Proprierary Modules
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:17:33 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <y0mzlst6tgi.fsf@ton.toronto.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080320191205.GA13309@elte.hu> (Ingo Molnar's message of "Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:12:05 +0100")
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
>> There seems to be good arguments for markers to support proprierary
>> modules. So I am throwing this one-liner in and let's see how people
>> react. [...]
>
> ugh, this is unbelievably stupid move technically - so a very strong
> NACK. Allowing marker use in unfixable modules (today it's placing
> markers into unfixable modules,
As the thread suggested, this can benefit us more than it benefits
them, because it may let us see more into the blobs.
> tomorrow it's marker use by such modules) has only one clear and
> predictable effect: it turns marker calls into essential ABIs [...]
The marker_probe_*register calls are already EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL'd, so
that covers your "tomorrow" case. NACK that all you like when/if
someone proposes changing that.
> [if the proprietary modules attach to kernel markers ...] then all
> the pressure is on those who _can_ fix their code - meaning the
> kernel subsystem maintainers that use [you mean: define] markers.
(In a way, it would be a nice problem to have. At this moment, there
are still no markers actually committed within -mm nor -linus.)
- FChE
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-20 20:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-20 0:27 [patch 0/4] Markers updates for 2.6.25-rc6 Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-03-20 0:27 ` [patch 1/4] Markers - depends on not PREEMPT_RCU Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-03-20 19:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-20 19:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-03-20 0:27 ` [patch 2/4] Markers - Update preempt_disable. call_rcu, rcu_barrier comments Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-03-20 0:27 ` [patch 3/4] Markers - Remove ACCESS_ONCE Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-03-20 0:27 ` [patch 4/4] Markers Support for Proprierary Modules Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-03-20 5:35 ` Rusty Russell
2008-03-20 12:30 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-03-20 8:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-03-20 19:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-20 19:18 ` Jon Masters
2008-03-20 22:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-20 20:17 ` Frank Ch. Eigler [this message]
2008-03-20 22:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-20 22:24 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-03-20 22:22 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=y0mzlst6tgi.fsf@ton.toronto.redhat.com \
--to=fche@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jcm@jonmasters.org \
--cc=jcm@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome