[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070628102438.cafa1b41.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:24:38 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, perex@...e.cz, sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] ALSA portman2x4 section mismatch
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:02:32 +0200 Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:30:13 -0700,
> Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
> >
> > FIx section mismatch when CONFIG_HOTPLUG=n:
> >
> > WARNING: sound/built-in.o(.exit.text+0x271): Section mismatch: reference to .init.text:snd_p
> > ortman_unregister_all (between 'snd_portman_module_exit' and 'alsa_mpu401_uart_exit')
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
>
> I applied it to ALSA tree now because it's the simplest way to fix
> this warning. But, I'm still wondering whether it was really wrong.
>
> The function snd_portmap_unregister_all() is called both from the
> module init and exit functions. Would the module_exit function be
> called even CONFIG_MODULE=n ?
No, it's not called when the driver is built-in.
> If not, __init_or_module should be
> correct since the function is called only from module_init.
[adding Sam to cc:]
I see. So to try to summarize:
When CONFIG_MODULES=n, __exit functions can be allowed to reference
__init functions since the __init functions won't be called because
the __exit functions are not invoked.
Does that sound correct? Can & should modpost add this knowledge?
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists