[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b9df5fa10811131927g56d9887jdda1d1ec0d7f8c07@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:27:10 +0600
From: "Rakib Mullick" <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "Rufus & Azrael" <rufus-azrael@...ericable.fr>,
"Linux-kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Fixing improper annotation.
On 11/12/08, Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/08, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> >
> > okay - so i wont apply them until the full scope of the problems here
> > is mapped. We might be best off by marking xsave_cntxt_init() non-init
> > altogether for the time being?
>
> But, it's been called from an __init section, it will also trigger an
> warning too. So, it
> will remain as it was. If we goes to hunt these warnings ( I mean
> we've to replace __init __alloc_bootmem() with __cpuinit
> __alloc_bootmem() ) , it's not certain when it will stop. Likely , we
> need to replace a lots of __init with __cpuinit.
>
Actually , if we replace __init __alloc_bootmem() with __cpuinit
__alloc_bootmem() that doesn't solve the problem. The mentioned
warning generates when CONFIG_ARCH_BOOTMEM_NODE=y is set. I think Ingo
is right. We can mark xsave_cntxt_init() as non-init. And we could
teach modpost to not to generate the warning
with __ref. Can we, Ingo ?
> Rakib
> >
> > Ingo
> >
>
--
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