On 10/22, David Long wrote:
>
> On 10/19/13 12:42, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 10/15, David Long wrote:
>>>
>>> Add a weak function for any architecture-specific initialization. ARM
>>> will use this to register the handlers for the undefined instructions it
>>> uses to implement uprobes.
>>
>> Could you explain why ARM can't simply do the necessary initialization in
>> arch/arm/kernel/uprobes-arm.c ?
>>
>>
>>> +int __weak __init arch_uprobes_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static int __init init_uprobes(void)
>>> {
>>> + int ret;
>>> int i;
>>>
>>> for (i = 0; i < UPROBES_HASH_SZ; i++)
>>> @@ -1870,6 +1876,10 @@ static int __init init_uprobes(void)
>>> if (percpu_init_rwsem(&dup_mmap_sem))
>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>> + ret = arch_uprobes_init();
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>>> return register_die_notifier(&uprobe_exception_nb);
>>> }
>>> module_init(init_uprobes);
>>
>> IOW, why do we need to call arch_uprobes_init() from init_uprobes().
>>
>> Oleg
>>
>
> I don't know how you would do the initialization without invoking it
> through the module_init function, which I think you can only have one
> of. Could you explain in more detail what you had in mind?
I simply do not understand why uprobes.c uses module_init/module_exit,
it can't be compiled as a module.
I think that module_exit/exit_uprobes should be killed, and module_init()
should be turned into __initcall(). uprobes-arm.c can have another one.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
