Re: [PATCH] powerpc/module_64: use module_init_section instead of patching names

From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@google.com>
Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/module_64: use module_init_section instead of patching names
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:27:02 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8735kknzeh.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMKQLN+Q3asVqP3MZVFZO66CvZVVfGOZn=pMXmiNqZ7t2i55wg@mail.gmail.com>

Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@google.com> writes:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 05:53, Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Without this patch, module init sections are disabled by patching their
>> names in arch-specific code when they're loaded (which prevents code in
>> layout_sections from finding init sections). This patch uses the new
>> arch-specific module_init_section instead.
>>
>> This allows modules that have .init_array sections to have the
>> initialisers properly called (on load, before init). Without this patch,
>> the initialisers are not called because .init_array is renamed to
>> _init_array, and thus isn't found by code in find_module_sections().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@google.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c | 11 ++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
...
>
> Would any additional clarification from my part be helpful here?

Just more patience ;)

> I got an email saying it was under review (and checks passed) but
> nothing appears to have happened since.

I actually put it in next late last week, but the emails got delayed due
to various gremlins.

cheers