On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> - if we are ok with a loss of a kbyte or two, 2.6.17 is fine as is
> (with my incorrect patches in).
> - if we want to save that memory, we can revert the two patches and fix
> xfs to make the register calls only when hotplug cpu is defined. This
> change is also minimal. It is a step in the right direction.
>
> Only downside i can see in reverting my patch is that if there is any
> other modules that are doing the same as what xfs was doing, we might
> trip in a similar oops.
Once register_cpu_notifier is placed in an init section, everything should
be okay. If some other module does _exactly_ what xfs did, it won't oops
-- instead the module will get an unresolved symbol error whenever someone
tries to insmod it, because the register_cpu_notifier symbol won't be
defined. I think this is an appropriate kind of failure mode.
However, it wouldn't hurt to add some comments to the definition and
declaration of register_cpu_notifier, explaining the circumstances in
which it should be used.
Alan Stern
-
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]
