Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:56:37 -0700 | | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH] make add_taint() inline |
| |
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:22:08 -0400 Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2005, at 13:44:37, donate wrote: > > From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> > > > > add_taint() is a trivial function. > > No need to call it out-of-line, just make it inline and > > remove its export. > > Actually, in this case it might be better to leave add_taint > exported, add and export a new function get_taint(), and then > remove all export of the variable "tainted". I've actually > seen one case where some module removed taint bits. I don't
some in-tree module?
> remember where or why, but it seemed really bad at the time, > and still does. Also, does the tainted variable need any > kind of locking? What happens if two CPUs try to taint the > kernel simultaneously?
Good question. one wins?
It sure looks like a problem in theory. I don't know that we have ever seen a bug report related to it though.
Maybe Dave Jones's modprobe/insmod killer test on a big multiprocessor system could do that one day.
--- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |