On Wednesday 03/06 at 13:34 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 12:05:07PM -0800, Calvin Owens wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > This patchset makes it possible to use bpftrace with kprobes on kernels > > built without loadable module support. > > This is a step in the right direction for another reason: clearly the > module_alloc() is not about modules, and we have special reasons for it > now beyond modules. The effort to share a generalize a huge page for > these things is also another reason for some of this but that is more > long term. > > I'm all for minor changes here so to avoid regressions but it seems a > rename is in order -- if we're going to all this might as well do it > now. And for that I'd just like to ask you paint the bikeshed with > Song Liu as he's been the one slowly making way to help us get there > with the "module: replace module_layout with module_memory", > and Mike Rapoport as he's had some follow up attempts [0]. As I see it, > the EXECMEM stuff would be what we use instead then. Mike kept the > module_alloc() and the execmem was just a wrapper but your move of the > arch stuff makes sense as well and I think would complement his series > nicely. I apologize for missing that. I think these are the four most recent versions of the different series referenced from that LWN link: a) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230918072955.2507221-1-rppt@xxxxxxxxxx/ b) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230526051529.3387103-1-song@xxxxxxxxxx/ c) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221107223921.3451913-1-song@xxxxxxxxxx/ d) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20201120202426.18009-1-rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx/ Song and Mike, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what I've done here (see [1], sorry for not adding you initially) is compatible with everything both of you have recently proposed above. How do you feel about this as a first step? For naming, execmem_alloc() seems reasonable to me? I have no strong feelings at all, I'll just use that going forward unless somebody else expresses an opinion. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1709676663.git.jcalvinowens@xxxxxxxxx/T/#m337096e158a5f771d0c7c2fb15a3b80a4443226a > If you're gonna split code up to move to another place, it'd be nice > if you can add copyright headers as was done with the kernel/module.c > split into kernel/module/*.c Silly question: should it be the same copyright header as the original corresponding module.c, or a new one? I tried to preserve the license header because I wasn't sure what to do about it. Thanks, Calvin > Can we start with some small basic stuff we can all agree on? > > [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/944857/ > > Luis
