On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:21:13 +0400, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> Debugging option CONFIG_MODULE_KTHREAD_CHECK provides a way to check
> whether all kernel threads created by the module and have used module
> code as a thread worker function are really exited when the module is
> unloaded. The followin
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:16:39 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:12:18PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > I thought it didn't. I rememer thinking about this and determining
> > > that NULL can't be allocated for dynamic addresses. Maybe I'm
> > > imagining things. Anyways,
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:44:40 +0400, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> Use ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR allocation pointer checking where allocation
> function may return ZERO_SIZE_PTR.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Antipov
> ---
> kernel/module.c | 12 ++--
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:28:12 +0400, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 03:21 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > Please fix __vmalloc_node_range() instead to return ZERO_SIZE_PTR.
> > And of course, vfree() to use ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR().
>
> For the convenience and unifor
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:19:16 +0400, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> For the architectures with it's own module_alloc(), if module init
> size is zero, avoiding module_alloc_update_bounds() and memset()
> no-op calls also eliminates warn_alloc_failed() zero-size warning
> in __vmalloc_node_range().
>
> S
