[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708230320010.2049@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:28:24 +0530 (IST)
From: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, wbrana@...il.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][bugzilla #8679] therm_throt.c: Fix section mismatch
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> I must say, this is an amazingly cunning idea. Only things I can think of
> against this would be: the dropping of unneeded code is not guaranteed,
> but depends on compiler. And we saw from the "static inline {return 0;}"
> testcase that gcc can sometimes be not-so-smart.
Oh, wait. I just stumbled upon arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel_cacheinfo.c
that references the callback function from generic CPU-initialization
startup code that must get executed even when HOTPLUG_CPU=n. The leave-it-
upto-toolchain method would see this reference, and preserve the function
even after initcalls stage for HOTPLUG_CPU=n. So the explicit __cpuinit
method scores here, admittedly only because of weird taste of said 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