Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost
- From: David Smith <dsmith@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:45:00 -0600
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* David Smith (dsmith@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* Roland McGrath (roland@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:Mathieu,
Hmmmm, I have rarely seen code go into mainline without addressing validIf we want to do it safely, I think we should iterate fromIt's just rather a pain in the ass, a whole lot more fiddly work.
__start___markers to __stop___markers symbols of vmlinux and get the
pointers to the name/format string pairs.
The same can then be done with modules using the __markers section.
Or maybe is there some reason not to do that ?
cf "somewhat crude" and "foreseeable future" in my patch's log entry.
Knock yourself out if you're looking for more tedious hacking to do in
modpost.c, but I say fix it when it breaks.
technical criticism first. Please fix.
I'll look into it if I find the time.
Mathieu
Here's an updated patch, written by Roland (that I tested for him), that
looks for all marker symbols in the __markers_strings section. It doesn't
get the pointers from the __markers section because that is very difficult
to do in modpost (having to handle the architecture-dependent relocations
applied to those pointers).
Hrm, what would happen if a gcc optimization eventually decides to mix
the memory layout of the strings ? Is there something that specifies
that they won't ?
I don't believe there is anything in gcc that specifies that the strings
won't get mixed around. But, I believe this code is good for the
foreseeable future. We could fix this code if the future breakage does
happen.
--
David Smith
dsmith@xxxxxxxxxx
Red Hat
http://www.redhat.com
256.217.0141 (direct)
256.837.0057 (fax)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [PATCH] markers: modpost
- From: Roland McGrath
- Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers
- Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost
- From: Roland McGrath
- Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers
- Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost
- From: David Smith
- Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers
- [PATCH] markers: modpost
- Prev by Date: Re: KPROBES: Instrumenting a function's call site
- Next by Date: Re: kbuild: possible regression?
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|