[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <65fb3fee96ec7_aa222949b@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 12:58:38 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, Ben Cheatham <Benjamin.Cheatham@....com>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, James Morse
<james.morse@....com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov
<bp@...en8.de>, Avadhut Naik <Avadhut.Naik@....com>, Shuai Xue
<xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: EINJ: mark remove callback as non-__exit
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>
> The remove callback of a device is called whenever it is unbound,
> which may happen during runtime e.g. through sysfs, so this is not
> allowed to be dropped from the binary:
>
> WARNING: modpost: vmlinux: section mismatch in reference: einj_driver+0x8 (section: .data) -> einj_remove (section: .exit.text)
> ERROR: modpost: Section mismatches detected.
>
> Remove that annotation.
Looks good, not sure why the build robots missed this while this was
sitting in -next. Yes, this was a side effect of reusing the former
einj_exit() as the device remove callback.
Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Rafael, can you pick this up?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists