On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 17:58:14 -0800 Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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". Hm, it sounds good to me too. I think we should add a patch which just rename the module_alloc/module_memfree with execmem_alloc/free first. Thanks, -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
