Subject: Re: [patch 01/26] Linux Kernel Markers Support for Proprierary
	Modules
From: Jon Masters <jonathan@jonmasters.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>,
       Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
       Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080124203332.749619937@polymtl.ca>
References: <20080124202706.250598537@polymtl.ca>
	 <20080124203332.749619937@polymtl.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: World Organi[sz]ation Of Broken Dreams
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:19:20 -0500
Message-Id: <1201213160.25284.163.camel@perihelion>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 788
Lines: 18


On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 15:27 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> There seems to be good arguments for markers to support proprierary modules. So
> I am throwing this one-liner in and let's see how people react. It only makes
> sure that a module that has been "forced" to be loaded won't have its markers
> used. It is important to leave this check to make sure the kernel does not crash
> by expecting the markers part of the struct module by mistake in the case there
> is an incorrect checksum.

Acked-by: Jon Masters <jcm@jonmasters.org>


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/