Hi Calvin, It is great to hear from you! :) On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 3:23 PM Calvin Owens <jcalvinowens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? I agree that the work here is compatible with other efforts. I have no objection to making this the 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. I am not good at naming things. No objection from me to "execmem_alloc". Thanks, Song
