linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] x86: olpc: fix section mismatch warning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a99e0316d831dcf0c81060fb977f7147704b6742.camel@v3.sk>
Date:   Tue, 07 May 2019 09:50:35 +0200
From:   Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] x86: olpc: fix section mismatch warning

On Mon, 2019-05-06 at 16:06 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> +Lubomir
> 
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:31 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> > From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
> > 
> > Fix section mismatch warning:
> > 
> > WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x36e00): Section mismatch in reference from the function olpc_dt_compatible_match() to the function .init.text:olpc_dt_getproperty()
> > The function olpc_dt_compatible_match() references
> > the function __init olpc_dt_getproperty().
> > This is often because olpc_dt_compatible_match lacks a __init
> > annotation or the annotation of olpc_dt_getproperty is wrong.
> > 
> > All calls to olpc_dt_compatible_match() are from __init functions,
> > so it can be marked __init also.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
> > Cc: x86@...nel.org
> > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
> 
> Fixes: a7a9bacb9a32 ("x86/platform/olpc: Use a correct version when
> making up a battery node")
> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>

Thanks for this. Which tree does this apply to? I can't see the patch
that introduce the problem in x86's for-next? I've a mostly equivalent
patch lined up with an intent to send it over to x86 once the faulty
commit reaches it:

https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all/2019-April/060269.html

In any case;

Reviewed-by: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk>

> -int olpc_dt_compatible_match(phandle node, const char *compat)
> +int __init olpc_dt_compatible_match(phandle node, const char *compat)

My patch also marks olpc_dt_compatible_match() static. It should still
be done if this one ends up being applied.

Lubo