On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 09:38 -0400, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:46:22 +0530, Chetan Nanda said:
> > I am trying to enable 'CONFIG_DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX' config option on
> > 3.10 kernel (for ARM arch) via writing CONFIG_DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX=y
> > at the end of
> > board specific config file.
> >
> > But .config generated after kernel build do not have this option enabled.
> >
> > Do I need to enable any other option also before enabling this one?
>
> Go into 'make menuconfig', Enter a '/'. In the textbox, enter a substring
> of the symbol (I entered 'MODULE_RONX').
>
> At least on x86_64, this shows me:
>
> x Symbol: DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX [=y] x
> x Type : boolean x
> x Prompt: Set loadable kernel module data as NX and text as RO x
> x Location: x
> x (1) -> Kernel hacking x
> x Defined at arch/x86/Kconfig.debug:112 x
> x Depends on: MODULES [=y]
>
> Perhaps it's different on ARM - seems pretty silly to enable MODULE_RONX
> if your kernel doesn't have CONFIG_MODULES=y in the build.
DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX was added for ARM in v3.14:
$ git grep -nw DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX v3.13
v3.13:arch/s390/Kconfig.debug:32:config DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX
v3.13:arch/x86/Kconfig.debug:103:config DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX
$ git grep -nw DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX v3.14
v3.14:arch/arm/Kconfig.debug:1198:config DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX
v3.14:arch/s390/Kconfig.debug:32:config DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX
v3.14:arch/x86/Kconfig.debug:103:config DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX
See commit dca9aa92fc7c ("ARM: add DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX option to
Kconfig"). So using that Kconfig symbol in v3.10 is pointless (for ARM).
> But in general, you should *NOT* simply edit the config file, because
> that does *not* do any checking of select/depend as you make the change.
>
> Then when you actually make the kernel, it *will* re-drive the select/depend
> logic, and convert the provided .config to a self-consistent form.
And, as Chetan noticed, it will also drop Kconfig symbols that are
unknown for that build (as, in this case, DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX).
> Of course,
> there is zero guarantee that the self-consistent form corresponds to your
> intentions....
Paul Bolle
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
