Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:10:16 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Carmelo Amoroso <carmelo73@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Jenkins <sourcejedi.lkml@googlemail.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
       linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fast LKM symbol resolution with SysV ELH hash table
Message-ID: <20091019191016.GA3922@kroah.com>
References: <4ADACD3A.9020803@gmail.com> <9b2b86520910180544g94ecc8fuf0d7849e18cd8937@mail.gmail.com> <20091018214704.GA26592@kroah.com> <2ccd6e3c0910190445va8ff4a8x94dc4044ac01057d@mail.gmail.com> <20091019132205.GA7192@kroah.com> <2ccd6e3c0910190802w117f8ac1nb562214786904c04@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2ccd6e3c0910190802w117f8ac1nb562214786904c04@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1709
Lines: 43

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 05:02:51PM +0200, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
> 2009/10/19 Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>:
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 01:45:20PM +0200, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
> >> Just a few other notes. The current implementation I did based on SysV
> >> has a drawback that is not backward compatible, so you cannot use old
> >> modules with a kernel with the option enabled due to changes on struct
> >> kernel_symbol.
> >
> > Why would this be a problem? ?Whenever making a kernel config change,
> > you should be able to rebuild everything, as lots of other configuration
> > options are that way.
> >
> 
> This is not always true... there could be cases in which you cannot
> recompile old modules (e.g vendors that provide non GPL modules)

But we do not care at all about that kind of thing, sorry.

> >> Anyway I've just figured out how to change it to remove this limitation.
> >> I need some time to review these patches. ?Further, the newer
> >> implementation based on GNU hash which we are working on right now,
> >> will not require the extra .undef.hash ELF sections because hash
> >> values are already embedded into the GNU hash table, with a reduction
> >> in terms of footprint.
> >
> > Footprint in the memory for the loaded module, or just in the footprint
> > for the module on the disk?
> >
> 
> both

Why would the already-loaded module size increase?

I guess I'll just wait to see the code before worrying about this :)

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/