Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1528547 > unrolled thread

Re: module: When modifying a module's text ignore modules which are going away too

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: module: When modifying a module's text ignore modules which are  going away too Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2016-11-23 17:10 +0100
    Re: module: When modifying a module's text ignore modules which are  going away too Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com> - 2016-11-23 19:40 +0100

#1528547 — Re: module: When modifying a module's text ignore modules which are going away too

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 05:40:58 -0500
Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com> wrote:

> +++ Aaron Tomlin [07/11/16 11:46 +0000]:
> >Hi Jessica,
> >
> >Any thoughts?  
> 
> Hi Aaron,
> 
> Thanks for your patience as I slowly work through a large swath of emails :-)
> 
> Anyway, this looks fine to me. A going module's text should be (or
> soon will be) rw anyway, so checking for going modules in the ro
> case should be enough.
> 
> Rusty, if you give your ack for the second patch, I can apply both
> patches to my modules-next branch. I'll also incorporate Steven's
> suggestion for a comment explaining why going modules shouldn't be
> converted to ro in this context.
> 

Hi Jessica,

Have you pulled these in? I haven't noticed them in linux-next.

-- Steve

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1528676

+++ Steven Rostedt [23/11/16 11:00 -0500]:
>On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 05:40:58 -0500
>Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> +++ Aaron Tomlin [07/11/16 11:46 +0000]:
>> >Hi Jessica,
>> >
>> >Any thoughts?
>>
>> Hi Aaron,
>>
>> Thanks for your patience as I slowly work through a large swath of emails :-)
>>
>> Anyway, this looks fine to me. A going module's text should be (or
>> soon will be) rw anyway, so checking for going modules in the ro
>> case should be enough.
>>
>> Rusty, if you give your ack for the second patch, I can apply both
>> patches to my modules-next branch. I'll also incorporate Steven's
>> suggestion for a comment explaining why going modules shouldn't be
>> converted to ro in this context.
>>
>
>Hi Jessica,
>
>Have you pulled these in? I haven't noticed them in linux-next.

I currently have this queued up for 4.10. I'm still clearing up some
(unrelated to this patch) maintainership transition questions, but
expect the new modules tree to be pushed out and included in -next
by this week.

Thanks,
Jessica

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web