On 01/20, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
> On 01/19/2015 08:05 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> writes:
> >>
> >> If we want to optimize this... I am wondering if we can change
> >> initcall_blacklist()
> >>
> >> - entry->buf = alloc_bootmem(strlen(str_entry) + 1);
> >> + ebtry->fn = kallsyms_lookup_name(str_entry);
> >>
> >> and then change initcall_blacklisted() to just compare the pointers.
> >
> > That would make far, far more sense. It would fail for modules of
> > course, but that might be OK. Prarit, this was your code; does it
> > matter?
>
> It does actually matter to me. I've been using it to blacklist modules at
> boot
> as well ... and it works really well :) So I'm okay with the original patch
> but
> not the second suggested change.
Yes, I didn't know/realize that initcall_blacklist paramater can be
also used to disable the modules, thanks for correcting me.
But I'd say that initcall_blacklisted(mod->init) looks a bit strange,
I mean it would be probably better to use mod->name in this case, not
the "internal" name of this likely static function.
Perhaps even another kernel parameter makes sense for this, I dunno..
>From Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt:
initcall_blacklist= [KNL] Do not execute a comma-separated list of
initcall functions. Useful for debugging built-in
modules and initcalls.
note that this only mentions built-in modules.
Nevermind, I was wrong anyway. Thanks!
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
