Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:38:44 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch 06/61] lock validator: add __module_address() method |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:23:33 +0200 > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > +/* > > + * Is this a valid module address? We don't grab the lock. > > + */ > > +int __module_address(unsigned long addr) > > +{ > > + struct module *mod; > > + > > + list_for_each_entry(mod, &modules, list) > > + if (within(addr, mod->module_core, mod->core_size)) > > + return 1; > > + return 0; > > +} > > Returns a boolean. > > > /* Is this a valid kernel address? We don't grab the lock: we are oopsing. */ > > struct module *__module_text_address(unsigned long addr) > > But this returns a module*. > > I'd suggest that __module_address() should do the same thing, from an > API neatness POV. Although perhaps that's mot very useful if we > didn't take a ref on the returned object (but module_text_address() > doesn't either). > > Also, the name's a bit misleading - it sounds like it returns the > address of a module or something. __module_any_address() would be > better, perhaps?
yeah. I changed this to __is_module_address().
> Also, how come this doesn't need modlist_lock()?
indeed. I originally avoided taking that lock due to recursion worries - but in fact we use this only in sections that initialize a lock - hence no recursion problems.
i fixed this and renamed the function to is_module_address() :)
Ingo - 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/
| |