On Tue 2018-03-13 17:38:58, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 09:20:31AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > We are going to add a feature called atomic replace. It will allow to
> > create a patch that would replace all already registered patches.
> > For this, we will need to dynamically create funcs and objects
> > for functions that are no longer patched.
> >
> > We will want to reuse the existing init() and free() functions. Up to now,
> > the free() functions checked a limit and were called only for structures
> > with initialized kobject. But we will want to call them also for structures
> > that were allocated but where the kobject was not initialized yet.
> >
> > This patch removes the limit. It calls klp_free*() functions for all
> > structures. But only the ones with initialized kobject are freed.
> > The handling of un-initialized structures will be added later with
> > the support for dynamic structures.
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/core.c b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > index 1d525f4a270a..69bde95e76f8 100644
> > --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > @@ -653,17 +653,15 @@ static struct kobj_type klp_ktype_func = {
> > .sysfs_ops = &kobj_sysfs_ops,
> > };
> >
> > -/*
> > - * Free all functions' kobjects in the array up to some limit. When limit is
> > - * NULL, all kobjects are freed.
> > - */
> > -static void klp_free_funcs_limited(struct klp_object *obj,
> > - struct klp_func *limit)
> > +/* Free all funcs that have the kobject initialized. */
> > +static void klp_free_funcs(struct klp_object *obj)
> > {
> > struct klp_func *func;
> >
> > - for (func = obj->funcs; func->old_name && func != limit; func++)
> > - kobject_put(&func->kobj);
> > + klp_for_each_func(obj, func) {
> > + if (func->kobj.state_initialized)
> > + kobject_put(&func->kobj);
> > + }
> > }
>
> Now that this function only has a single caller, personally I think it
> would become more readable if klp_free_funcs() were inlined into its
> caller (klp_free_objects()). At the very least it should be moved to be
> right above it.
I would keep it as is. The function will get later more complicated by
adding support for dynamically allocated structures.
I still have to think about squashing the patches. I'll reply
on this in the other mail where you opened this question.
Best regards,
Petr
PS: Thank you for review. I took some pills against functionitis and
already applied all changes suggested for the 1st patch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
