Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:00:49 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>
Cc: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: module: When modifying a module's text ignore modules which are
 going away too
Message-ID: <20161123110049.1c458298@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20161109104058.GB27196@packer-debian-8-amd64.digitalocean.com>
References: <20161026080914.5bc68d0d@gandalf.local.home>
        <1477560966-781-1-git-send-email-atomlin@redhat.com>
        <20161027094934.296d668d@gandalf.local.home>
        <20161107114629.GB16093@atomlin.usersys.redhat.com>
        <20161109104058.GB27196@packer-debian-8-amd64.digitalocean.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 749
Lines: 27

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 05:40:58 -0500
Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com> wrote:

> +++ Aaron Tomlin [07/11/16 11:46 +0000]:
> >Hi Jessica,
> >
> >Any thoughts?  
> 
> Hi Aaron,
> 
> Thanks for your patience as I slowly work through a large swath of emails :-)
> 
> Anyway, this looks fine to me. A going module's text should be (or
> soon will be) rw anyway, so checking for going modules in the ro
> case should be enough.
> 
> Rusty, if you give your ack for the second patch, I can apply both
> patches to my modules-next branch. I'll also incorporate Steven's
> suggestion for a comment explaining why going modules shouldn't be
> converted to ro in this context.
> 

Hi Jessica,

Have you pulled these in? I haven't noticed them in linux-next.

-- Steve