lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] kernel: constructor support
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Disable constructor support for usermode Linux to prevent conflicts
>>>> with host glibc.
>>>> +++ linux-2.6.30-rc4/init/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -16,6 +16,11 @@ config DEFCONFIG_LIST
>>>> default "$ARCH_DEFCONFIG"
>>>> default "arch/$ARCH/defconfig"
>>>> +config CONSTRUCTORS
>>>> + bool
>>>> + depends on !UML
>>>> + default y
>>>> +
>>>> menu "General setup"
>>> Hm, excluding UML like that is sad. Is there no better solution?
>> UML is excluded because in that environment constructors are
>> called by the host glibc, so there is no need for kernel support
>> on UML (in fact it would break things).
>>
>> Or were you referring to the actual way the exclusion is
>> implemented?
>
> the way it's done is OK (there's really just UML in this situation),
> but the question is really, shouldnt it be possible to coverage-test
> UML instances 'from the inside'?

From a mere gcov perspective, coverage-testing from the outside is
superior because that is the way it was meant to be run in the first place.

>
> Plus, if any other kernel facility grows out of this or makes use of
> it, UML will be left out in the cold.

I'm afraid that trying to over-engineer the gcov-kernel mechanism at
this time might serve neither the gcov-kernel users, nor potential new
users. Once the base is established, it will be far easier to decide
which other purposes the infrastructure can serve (without completely
bending it).



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-08 13:27    [W:0.074 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site