[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090419111650.GA19873@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:16:50 +0200
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rakib.mullick@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86: Fix false positive section mismatch warnings in the apic code
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:57:59AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > tip-bot for Rakib Mullick pisze:
> > > Commit-ID: aa57a15ad17d284e62fbd24cf7e0eb628b2cb3f7
> > > Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/aa57a15ad17d284e62fbd24cf7e0eb628b2cb3f7
> > > Author: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
> > > AuthorDate: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:41:17 +0600
> > > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > > CommitDate: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:28:18 +0200
> > >
> > > x86: Fix false positive section mismatch warnings in the apic code
> > >
> > > find_unisys_acpi_oem_table() and unmap_unisys_acpi_oem_table()
> > > are non init functions, but these functions calls some init
> > > functions. But we need these functions as non-init functions.
> >
> > Why? This warning seems to be valid.
>
> It's put into struct apic::acpi_madt_oem_check - which is a non-init
> structure. That particular field is only used from init context -
> but other fields are used all the time.
>
> Sam, what's the preferred way to handle these? We could mark the
> function pointer prototype there as __initdata, but i suspect we'll
> still get the warning in that case.
If I understand it correct we have the following:
(data) struct apic apic_es7000.acpi_madt_oem_check =>
(function) es7000_acpi_madt_oem_check =>
(function) find_unisys_acpi_oem_table
(__init) early_acpi_os_unmap_memory
So the real fix is to:
1) annotate find_unisys_acpi_oem_table __init
2) annotate es7000_acpi_madt_oem_check __init
3) teach modpost that struct apic apic_es7000 may reference __init
Step 3 is done using __refdata
Based on the above analysis I would assume the best fix
would look like this the following.
[I only looked at the first warning]
Rabik/Marcin - if you agree in the analysis could you produce
a proper patch and send to Ingo - thanks.
You can add my:
Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
if the patch is ok.
Sam
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/es7000_32.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/es7000_32.c
index 1c11b81..810d5ce 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/es7000_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/es7000_32.c
@@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ static int parse_unisys_oem(char *oemptr)
}
#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
-static int find_unisys_acpi_oem_table(unsigned long *oem_addr)
+static int __init find_unisys_acpi_oem_table(unsigned long *oem_addr)
{
struct acpi_table_header *header = NULL;
struct es7000_oem_table *table;
@@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ static int es7000_check_dsdt(void)
static int es7000_acpi_ret;
/* Hook from generic ACPI tables.c */
-static int es7000_acpi_madt_oem_check(char *oem_id, char *oem_table_id)
+static int __init es7000_acpi_madt_oem_check(char *oem_id, char *oem_table_id)
{
unsigned long oem_addr = 0;
int check_dsdt;
@@ -717,7 +717,11 @@ struct apic apic_es7000_cluster = {
.safe_wait_icr_idle = native_safe_apic_wait_icr_idle,
};
-struct apic apic_es7000 = {
+/*
+ * .acpi_madt_oem_check references an init function which is ok.
+ * Annotate with __refdata to silence section mismatch warning
+ */
+struct apic __refdata apic_es7000 = {
.name = "es7000",
.probe = probe_es7000,
--
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