On 01/20/2015 01:05 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 01/20, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >> >> On 01/19/2015 08:05 PM, Rusty Russell wrote: >>> Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>> If we want to optimize this... I am wondering if we can change >>>> initcall_blacklist() >>>> >>>> - entry->buf = alloc_bootmem(strlen(str_entry) + 1); >>>> + ebtry->fn = kallsyms_lookup_name(str_entry); >>>> >>>> and then change initcall_blacklisted() to just compare the pointers. >>> >>> That would make far, far more sense. It would fail for modules of >>> course, but that might be OK. Prarit, this was your code; does it >>> matter? >> >> It does actually matter to me. I've been using it to blacklist modules at >> boot >> as well ... and it works really well :) So I'm okay with the original patch >> but >> not the second suggested change. > > Yes, I didn't know/realize that initcall_blacklist paramater can be > also used to disable the modules, thanks for correcting me.
I didn't have that in mind originally, but I've been using it to debug initramfs module loading. It has worked quite well. > > But I'd say that initcall_blacklisted(mod->init) looks a bit strange, > I mean it would be probably better to use mod->name in this case, not > the "internal" name of this likely static function. :) I've been thinking about exactly this too. I just haven't had any time to do it. > > Perhaps even another kernel parameter makes sense for this, I dunno.. > From Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt: > > initcall_blacklist= [KNL] Do not execute a comma-separated list of > initcall functions. Useful for debugging built-in > modules and initcalls. > > note that this only mentions built-in modules. I can fix that up too. P. > > Nevermind, I was wrong anyway. Thanks! > > Oleg. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
