All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>, linux-um@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init/module: split CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS to fix module gcov on UML
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:20:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1232adfb-cbe8-5cfc-88bc-b8913d6a39c6@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e386f13f8496330cd42e93c6d48a25b9a57a6792.camel@sipsolutions.net>

On 20.01.2021 17:09, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 17:07 +0100, Peter Oberparleiter wrote:
> 
>> Do you expect other users for these new config symbols? 
> 
> Probably not.
> 
>> If not it seems
>> to me that the goal of enabling module constructors for UML could also
>> be achieved without introducing new config symbols.
> 
> Yeah, true.
> 
>> For example you could suppress calling any built-in kernel constructors
>> in case of UML by extending the ifdef in do_ctors() to depend on both
>> CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS and !CONFIG_UML (maybe with an explanatory comment).
>>
>> Of course you'd still need to remove the !UML dependency in
>> CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL.
> 
> Right.
> 
> I can post a separate patch and we can see which one looks nicer?

Sounds good!


-- 
Peter Oberparleiter
Linux on Z Development - IBM Germany

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>, linux-um@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init/module: split CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS to fix module gcov on UML
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:20:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1232adfb-cbe8-5cfc-88bc-b8913d6a39c6@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e386f13f8496330cd42e93c6d48a25b9a57a6792.camel@sipsolutions.net>

On 20.01.2021 17:09, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 17:07 +0100, Peter Oberparleiter wrote:
> 
>> Do you expect other users for these new config symbols? 
> 
> Probably not.
> 
>> If not it seems
>> to me that the goal of enabling module constructors for UML could also
>> be achieved without introducing new config symbols.
> 
> Yeah, true.
> 
>> For example you could suppress calling any built-in kernel constructors
>> in case of UML by extending the ifdef in do_ctors() to depend on both
>> CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS and !CONFIG_UML (maybe with an explanatory comment).
>>
>> Of course you'd still need to remove the !UML dependency in
>> CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL.
> 
> Right.
> 
> I can post a separate patch and we can see which one looks nicer?

Sounds good!


-- 
Peter Oberparleiter
Linux on Z Development - IBM Germany

_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um


  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-20 16:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-19 11:18 [PATCH] init/module: split CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS to fix module gcov on UML Johannes Berg
2021-01-19 11:18 ` Johannes Berg
2021-01-20 16:07 ` Peter Oberparleiter
2021-01-20 16:07   ` Peter Oberparleiter
2021-01-20 16:09   ` Johannes Berg
2021-01-20 16:09     ` Johannes Berg
2021-01-20 16:20     ` Peter Oberparleiter [this message]
2021-01-20 16:20       ` Peter Oberparleiter
2021-01-20 16:20     ` [PATCH v2] init/gcov: allow CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS on UML to fix module gcov Johannes Berg
2021-01-20 16:20       ` Johannes Berg
2021-01-20 17:04       ` Peter Oberparleiter
2021-01-20 17:04         ` Peter Oberparleiter
2021-01-20 17:38         ` Johannes Berg
2021-01-20 17:38           ` Johannes Berg
2021-05-08 13:50         ` Lambert
2021-05-10 11:37           ` Johannes Berg
2021-05-10 11:37             ` Johannes Berg
2021-05-10 13:31             ` lambertdev
2021-05-10 13:31               ` lambertdev
2021-05-14 13:55           ` Peter Oberparleiter
2021-05-14 13:55             ` Peter Oberparleiter

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=1232adfb-cbe8-5cfc-88bc-b8913d6a39c6@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=oberpar@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=jeyu@kernel.org \
    --cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-um@lists.infradead.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.