Hi Geoff,
On Sat, 2014-08-30 at 14:47 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> [Added Peter Anvin.]
>
> On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 13:22 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 06:39:47PM +0000, Geoff Levand wrote:
> > > Remove the unneded declaration for a kexec_load() routine.
> > >
> > > Fixes errors like these when running 'make headers_check':
> > >
> > > include/uapi/linux/kexec.h: userspace cannot reference function or variable defined in the kernel
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Geoff Levand <[email protected]>
> >
> > I think Paul Bolle tried to remove this in the past and maximilian
> > had objections.
> >
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2014-January/010902.html
>
> I've wanted to resend my patch, perhaps with a new commit explanation,
> for quite some time now. I never got around doing that.
>
> > I can't see that how exporting kernel prototype helps here.
>
> It doesn't, for the reasons I've set out in
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2014-January/010900.html . In
> short: why bother using this prototype if one still needs to define the
> matching function oneself?
>
> > kexec-tools
> > seems to be using syscall(__NR_kexec_load) directly for non-xen case. So
> > I would be fine with removing this definition. Just trying to make sure
> > that it does not break any other library or users of this declaration.
>
> Obviously, this can only break compiling those libraries, or other
> users. It can't break already compiled binaries. Besides I don't think
> those libraries, etc actually exist. Maximilian mentioned klibc in
> January, but I wasn't able to find a version of klibc that cared about
> this prototype. No one pointed me at a version that does (or any other
> library, etc., for that matter).
>
> (If we do decide to keep this prototype, we should special case this
> prototype in headers_check.pl just to silence the build.)
>
> The above can be summarized like this:
> Acked-by: Paul Bolle <[email protected]>
It seems not much happened after I added my Acked-by. I assume you still
want to get this merged. Is that correct?
Paul Bolle
Hi,
On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 16:12 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-08-30 at 14:47 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > [Added Peter Anvin.]
> >
> > On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 13:22 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 06:39:47PM +0000, Geoff Levand wrote:
> > > > Remove the unneded declaration for a kexec_load() routine.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes errors like these when running 'make headers_check':
> > > >
> > > > include/uapi/linux/kexec.h: userspace cannot reference function or variable defined in the kernel
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Geoff Levand <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > I think Paul Bolle tried to remove this in the past and maximilian
> > > had objections.
> > >
> > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2014-January/010902.html
> >
> > I've wanted to resend my patch, perhaps with a new commit explanation,
> > for quite some time now. I never got around doing that.
> >
> > > I can't see that how exporting kernel prototype helps here.
> >
> > It doesn't, for the reasons I've set out in
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2014-January/010900.html . In
> > short: why bother using this prototype if one still needs to define the
> > matching function oneself?
> >
> > > kexec-tools
> > > seems to be using syscall(__NR_kexec_load) directly for non-xen case. So
> > > I would be fine with removing this definition. Just trying to make sure
> > > that it does not break any other library or users of this declaration.
> >
> > Obviously, this can only break compiling those libraries, or other
> > users. It can't break already compiled binaries. Besides I don't think
> > those libraries, etc actually exist. Maximilian mentioned klibc in
> > January, but I wasn't able to find a version of klibc that cared about
> > this prototype. No one pointed me at a version that does (or any other
> > library, etc., for that matter).
> >
> > (If we do decide to keep this prototype, we should special case this
> > prototype in headers_check.pl just to silence the build.)
> >
> > The above can be summarized like this:
> > Acked-by: Paul Bolle <[email protected]>
>
> It seems not much happened after I added my Acked-by. I assume you still
> want to get this merged. Is that correct?
Yes, I think we concluded there are no real users of this kexec_load()
ptototype, and so it can be removed.
-Geoff
On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 10:34 -0700, Geoff Levand wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 16:12 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > It seems not much happened after I added my Acked-by. I assume you still
> > want to get this merged. Is that correct?
>
> Yes, I think we concluded there are no real users of this kexec_load()
> ptototype, and so it can be removed.
What would be the quickest way to get this finally resolved? Who's in
charge of this stuff? Would resending your patch, with my Ack added,
speed up things? The vain side of my personality does think it would
help.
Paul Bolle
On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 20:21 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 10:34 -0700, Geoff Levand wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 16:12 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > > It seems not much happened after I added my Acked-by. I assume you still
> > > want to get this merged. Is that correct?
> >
> > Yes, I think we concluded there are no real users of this kexec_load()
> > ptototype, and so it can be removed.
>
> What would be the quickest way to get this finally resolved? Who's in
> charge of this stuff? Would resending your patch, with my Ack added,
> speed up things? The vain side of my personality does think it would
> help.
I'll prepare a V2 set of the this series with the various acks and ask
Andrew to merge it.
-Geoff