Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:18:50 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Matt Mullins <mmullins@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "daniel@iogearbox.net" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        "bpf@vger.kernel.org" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        "ast@kernel.org" <ast@kernel.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Martin Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        "arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: hide do_bpf_send_signal when unused
Message-ID: <20190617201850.010a4cf6@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQKCeHrq+bf4DceH7+ihpq+q-V+bFOiF-TpYjekH7dPA0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190617125724.1616165-1-arnd@arndb.de>
        <CAADnVQ+LzuNHFyLae0vUAudZpOFQ4cA02OC0zu3ypis+gqnjew@mail.gmail.com>
        <20190617190920.71c21a6c@gandalf.local.home>
        <75e9ff40e1002ad9c82716dfd77966a3721022b6.camel@fb.com>
        <CAADnVQKCeHrq+bf4DceH7+ihpq+q-V+bFOiF-TpYjekH7dPA0w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:27:33 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:13 PM Matt Mullins <mmullins@fb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The bug (really just a warning) reported is exactly here.  
> >
> > I don't think bpf_send_signal is tied to modules at all;
> > send_signal_irq_work_init and the corresponding initcall should be
> > moved outside that #ifdef.  
> 
> right. I guess send_signal_irq_work_init was accidentally placed
> after bpf_event_init and happened to be within that ifdef.
> Should definitely be outside.

So Arnd did find a bug. Just the wrong solution ;-)

-- Steve