Re: [PATCH] Dynamic kernel environment support (kgetenv() and friends), ACPI quirks

["Thomas E. Spanjaard" <tgen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     * sysctl_kenv() (which you have #ifdef notyet'd so the code is not
>       compiled in yet)... you are missing a spin_unlock.  heh.  yah yah,
>       and probably ten other things too.

Yeah, I didn't really put any effort in making that one actually work 
yet. I could just leave that out entirely, to implement at a later time. 
Stale dead code is worse than nonexisting code :).

>     * kenv_uninit() is holding a spin lock across a kfree(), which is
>       not legal.  Of course, insofar as I can tell, kenv_uninit() will
>       never run since it is a SYSUNINIT in a mandatry kernel module,
>       so you could probably remove the whole routine and remove the
>       SYSUNINIT :-).

Yeah, I should just set kenv_isdynamic=0 right after locking, then 
unlocking again, which would be sufficient. The theory for the SYSUNINIT 
is that, in theory, one could make the dynamic stuff a kmod and keep 
only the static stuff in the kernel; the kfooenv functions would need 
significant changes though and the usefulness is approximately zero :). 
I'll just remove that stuff.

Cheers,
--
        Thomas E. Spanjaard
        tgen@netphreax.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature