From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8862 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2006 21:47:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 8855 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Apr 2006 21:47:59 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mga02.intel.com (HELO orsmga101-1.jf.intel.com) (134.134.136.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:47:58 +0000 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101-1.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2006 14:47:56 -0700 Received: from scsmsx332.sc.intel.com (HELO scsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com) ([10.3.90.6]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2006 14:47:56 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.03,159,1141632000"; d="scan'208"; a="18804642:sNHT56822759" Received: from scsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.3.90.18]) by scsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 14:47:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: patch for module function probe Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: patch for module function probe Thread-Index: AcZXUxhKkgUFQtNHSoG41BSMjR3aEQAFHI+w From: "Stone, Joshua I" To: "Roland McGrath" , "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2006 21:47:56.0320 (UTC) FILETIME=[44726200:01C65768] X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q2/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 Roland McGrath wrote: >> Yes, it might be. It would be best if there was a way of >> automagically supporting module("foo") for a foo that's compiled >> into vmlinux with a CONFIG_FOO=3Dy instead of CONFIG_FOO=3Dm. Does >> kbuild leave any traces of the module ancestry in object files >> produced this way?=20 >=20 > I don't think there is any way to recover that information. Even if there were a way, this justs exacerbate the problem that started this thread. If CONFIG_FOO=3Dy and someone also compiles and loads an unrelated module foo, which would you turn to for resolving module("foo")? Josh