[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100809060831.GF2841@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:08:31 +0300
From: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>
To: ext Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: "Balbi Felipe (Nokia-MS/Helsinki)" <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Section Mismatches
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 02:26:59PM +0200, ext Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>Hi Felipe,
>
>On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 02:11:56PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> I see that your commit 0db252452378aa7a9e001a13226e1cd1dc61453d removed
>> the *_driver from the symbol whitelist when referencing init section
>> (heh, it took a while), but could you explain what's the rationale
>> behind that ?
>The rational is that it's AFAIK wrong if a driver references a function
>that lives in .init.text.
how about all the driver structures ? should they remove __init from
probe() or stop saving the probe() function's pointer ?
That can be done for e.g. platform drivers, but for cpufreq_driver
structures, I can't see a way to avoid a section mismatch (not without
changing the cpufreq code a bit, at least). And, to me, that init has to
live in the .init.text section as it's pretty much only called to
initialize the frequency table for the cpu.
>Do you think that's wrong?
no, no. Not saying that. Just wondering what will happen with several
drivers, will they change from _driver to _ops or try to stop saving
probe() pointers into the driver structure.
--
balbi
DefectiveByDesign.org
--
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