From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752784Ab3KDDYy (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:24:54 -0500 Received: from mail-qc0-f170.google.com ([209.85.216.170]:37923 "EHLO mail-qc0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751415Ab3KDDYx (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:24:53 -0500 Message-ID: <52771383.5090907@linaro.org> Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 22:24:51 -0500 From: David Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oleg Nesterov CC: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Rabin Vincent , "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" , Srikar Dronamraju , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/13] uprobes: allow arch-specific initialization References: <1381871068-27660-1-git-send-email-dave.long@linaro.org> <1381871068-27660-5-git-send-email-dave.long@linaro.org> <20131019164223.GB7837@redhat.com> <52672484.9010201@linaro.org> <20131028185818.GB12863@redhat.com> <5272A45B.20507@linaro.org> <20131101135247.GA16509@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20131101135247.GA16509@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/01/13 09:52, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 10/31, David Long wrote: >> On 10/28/13 14:58, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >>> On 10/22, David Long wrote: >>> I simply do not understand why uprobes.c uses module_init/module_exit, >>> it can't be compiled as a module. >> >> I guess that makes sense, assuming it can never be made a module. I saw >> you recent commit for this. >> >>> I think that module_exit/exit_uprobes should be killed, and module_init() >>> should be turned into __initcall(). uprobes-arm.c can have another one. >>> >> >> I will see if I can make this work. > > If this can't work, then we need the new hook (this patch). But in this > case please update the changelog to explain the reason. > >> Right now the arch-specific >> initialization call is done in the middle of the generic initialization >> code, but I don't know that it *has* to be that way. I have some >> concern too about getting the order right, since these are built from >> different makefiles. > > Not sure I understand... But grep shows a lot of core_initcall()'s in > arch/arm/ which do register_undef_hook(). And I guess you can use any > initcall level. Just to close on this, I implemented your suggested __initcall change and it tested out fine. -dl From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dave.long@linaro.org (David Long) Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 22:24:51 -0500 Subject: [PATCH v2 04/13] uprobes: allow arch-specific initialization In-Reply-To: <20131101135247.GA16509@redhat.com> References: <1381871068-27660-1-git-send-email-dave.long@linaro.org> <1381871068-27660-5-git-send-email-dave.long@linaro.org> <20131019164223.GB7837@redhat.com> <52672484.9010201@linaro.org> <20131028185818.GB12863@redhat.com> <5272A45B.20507@linaro.org> <20131101135247.GA16509@redhat.com> Message-ID: <52771383.5090907@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 11/01/13 09:52, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 10/31, David Long wrote: >> On 10/28/13 14:58, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >>> On 10/22, David Long wrote: >>> I simply do not understand why uprobes.c uses module_init/module_exit, >>> it can't be compiled as a module. >> >> I guess that makes sense, assuming it can never be made a module. I saw >> you recent commit for this. >> >>> I think that module_exit/exit_uprobes should be killed, and module_init() >>> should be turned into __initcall(). uprobes-arm.c can have another one. >>> >> >> I will see if I can make this work. > > If this can't work, then we need the new hook (this patch). But in this > case please update the changelog to explain the reason. > >> Right now the arch-specific >> initialization call is done in the middle of the generic initialization >> code, but I don't know that it *has* to be that way. I have some >> concern too about getting the order right, since these are built from >> different makefiles. > > Not sure I understand... But grep shows a lot of core_initcall()'s in > arch/arm/ which do register_undef_hook(). And I guess you can use any > initcall level. Just to close on this, I implemented your suggested __initcall change and it tested out fine. -dl