> (2) has the disadvantage that its touching non-architecture specific
> code, but this is the option I'd prefer due to the obvious performance
> advantage. However, I'm afraid that it isn't worth the effort to fix
> up vmalloc and /proc/kcore. vmalloc fix appears simple, but /proc/kcore
> has issues (anyone know what KCORE_BASE is all about?)
KCORE_BASE is my fault ... it was an attempt to fix the "modules
below PAGE_OFFSET" problem for the ia64 port. For a few nanoseconds
the code just here looked like this:
#if VMALLOC_START < PAGE_OFFSET
#define KCORE_BASE VMALLOC_START
#define KCORE_BASE PAGE_OFFSET
Which worked great for ia64, but failed to even compile on i386
(because on i386 VMALLOC_START isn't a simple constant that cpp
can compare against).
Linus kept the bulk of my patch and just replaced the above code with
the "#define KCORE_BASE PAGE_OFFSET" that is there today, maybe
in the hope that I'd come back with a workable #ifdef ... but the only
one I've come up with so far is "#ifdef CONFIG_IA64" which can't be
right as ia64 isn't the only architecture with this issue.
There was some discussion on a better way to do this, by adding the
kernel itself to the vmlist, and eliminating all the special case code.
I took a brief look at this, but realised that there were all sorts
of ugly race conditions with /proc/kcore if a module is loaded/unloaded
after some process has read the Elf header.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 07 2003 - 22:00:24 EST