| To: | sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH 3/3] Assert notifier_block and notifier_call are not in init section |
| From: | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:47:50 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | akpm@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20060425023527.7529.9096.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> |
| References: | <20060425023509.7529.84752.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20060425023527.7529.9096.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> |
| Reply-to: | xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx 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.
Patches 1-2 applied.
Linus
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [xfs-masters] [PATCH 3/3] Assert notifier_block and notifier_call are not in init section, sekharan |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH 3/3] Assert notifier_block and notifier_call are not in init section, Linus Torvalds |
| Previous by Thread: | [xfs-masters] [PATCH 3/3] Assert notifier_block and notifier_call are not in init section, sekharan |
| Next by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH 3/3] Assert notifier_block and notifier_call are not in init section, Linus Torvalds |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |