Subject: Re: ksyms patches.
To: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/21/2003 19:11:04
> On Monday, April 21, 2003, at 07:01 AM, <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Comments?
> And now for comments on the code :-)
> In addsymtab(), I think, in fact, the shstrtab is loaded ... see
> db_elf.c for how the .symtab and .strtab sections are linked up. I
> think you'll want to duplicate that algorithm.
Yeah, good idea. There are some funny fiddling with the headers
that must be obeyed, I see.
> In general, it would be nice if locking were in place in this code.
> Once less thing to fix later :-) I don't think that's a barrier to
> this code being checked in, though ... mostly a "would be nice" :-)
I will do that, but not right now. I'll deal with that when starting
to fix some other internals of it, like the fast-lookup stuff.
> What's the deal with NKSYMS? I'd say if kern_ksyms.c is built at all
> that /dev/ksyms should be mandatory.
May be true. It was for the case if say DDB is defined and
no pseudo-device ksyms. This is probably only of academic interest.
> Other than the (pretty minor :-) comments above, this looks great!
> Thanks a ton for doing this (this is also going to make embedded
> systems a LOT happier :-)
Thanks, it has been in the closet for too many years, fortunately
it hadn't bit-rotten too much :-)