On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 19:47 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Feel free to drop this patch if you think it is not needed.
>
> It's incorrect.
>
> The init section will be free'd, and as a result can be re-allocated to
> other uses. Thus testing that data is not in the init-section makes no
> sense.
>
> Testing for _code_ not being in the init section can be sensible, since
> code never gets re-allocated (modulo module code, but that's never in the
> init section). So checking the "notifier_call" part may be sensible, but
> checking the notifier block data pointer definitely is not.
Two questions:
1) related to this patch: Do you want me to generate a patch that
asserts only notifier calls ?
2) Unrelated to this patch: If the _code_ section is never reallocated
or reused, what is the purpose of putting _code_ in the init section ?
Only to make sure that the init calls are called in order ?
Thanks
chandra
PS: I fixed my mailer to put my name. sorry about that.
>
> Patches 1-2 applied.
>
> Linus
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- [email protected] | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]