Re: [PATCH 1/4] kernel: constructor support

[Peter Oberparleiter]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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).

--
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/