[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080129181305.GB14056@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:13:06 +0100
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sections mismatches: How to mark new false positives?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 07:02:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I'm getting the following in the latest -git:
>
> <-- snip -->
>
> ...
> WARNING: arch/x86/kernel/built-in.o(.exit.text+0x1db): Section mismatch in reference from the function msr_exit() to the variable .cpuinit.data:msr_class_cpu_notifier
> ...
>
> <-- snip -->
>
> That's obviously a false positive (unregister_hotcpu_notifier() is a
> noop if CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=n), but how can I silence the warning?
What is the purpose of __cpuinit?
It seems to be used for two purposes:
To annotate code that is used to initialize cpu's
if CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=n then discard it after
init has completed
if CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=y then keep it
To annotate all 'core' cpu hotplug related code
if CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=n then it is not used and
can safely be discarded
if CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=y then keep it
And the variable msr_class_cpu_notifier belongs to the last category.
So the root cause of all the __cpu* related section mismatch
warnings are the misuse of __cpuinit to mark all core functions.
How are we going to fix this?
I see a couple of possibilities:
1) annotate like hell to hide the misuse of __cpuinit
2) introduce __cpu to make cpu hotplug 'core' stuff
3) drop section mismatch checks for __cpu stuff
Sam
--
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