Re: [RFC] [PATCH] make add_taint() inline

[Randy.Dunlap]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/