[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120605161318.GA29751@merkur.ravnborg.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 18:13:18 +0200
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>, x86@...nel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86,nmi: Fix section mismatch warnings on 32-bit
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 10:47:34AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:12:13AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 04.06.12 at 21:56, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > It was reported that compiling for 32-bit caused a bunch of section
> > > mismatch warnings:
> > >
> > > VDSOSYM arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-syms.lds
> > > LD arch/x86/vdso/built-in.o
> > > LD arch/x86/built-in.o
> > > WARNING: arch/x86/built-in.o(.data+0x5af0): Section mismatch in reference
> > > from the variable
> > > test_nmi_ipi_callback_na.10451 to the function
> >
> > Did you check what this (compiler introduced) variable actually
> > represents? The problem clearly is that the compiler has no way
> > of knowing that data it generates referencing an __init function
> > would actually need to go into .init.data or alike.
>
> I do not know enough about behind the scene compiler magic to track this
> down correctly. So any insight/help is greatly appreciated. :-)
We register a function annotated __init. And the normal use of this register()
is for functions that survive the init phase.
So drop the __init annotation on the function we register and the mismatch is fixed.
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