lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 11 Sep 2005 15:56:37 -0700
From"Randy.Dunlap" <>
SubjectRe: [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/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-09-12 00:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2010