[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6c82c574-6810-1003-183c-44f79ae7554f@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 10:00:50 -0500
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers@...il.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/xen/time: fix section mismatch for
xen_init_time_ops()
On 01/02/2018 09:32 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 02/01/18 14:24, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 02/01/18 15:18, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 12/23/2017 09:50 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>>>> The header declares this function as __init but is defined in __ref
>>>> section.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers@...il.com>
>>> AFAIK section attributes in header files are ignored by compiler anyway
>>> so I'd remove all of them.
>> Hmm, I'm not sure all future compilers will ignore the section
>> attributes. include/linux/init.h explictily mentions where to put
>> the attrubute in a prototype, so I'd rather keep it.
> Attributes in the declaration are for static analysis tools such as sparse.
>
> How else are you going to work out whether a section mismatch has occurred?
Isn't this done based on definitions?
Tons of __init routines don't have the attribute specified in header
files. In fact, even in this file (arch/x86/xen/xen-ops.h) there are
some that don't have it.
-boris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists