[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8e34346b-9703-48e5-8923-15800fa78899@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 14:42:09 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
<x86@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar
<mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
<patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/resctrl: Annotate get_mem_config functions as
__init
Hi Nathan,
Just one nit in the subject ... this area has the custom to use "()" to
highlight that the name refers to a function, so rather:
x86/resctrl: Annotate get_mem_config() functions as __init
On 9/13/24 4:27 PM, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> After a recent LLVM change [1] that deduces __cold on functions that
> only call cold code (such as __init functions), there is a section
> mismatch warning from __get_mem_config_intel(), which got moved to
> .text.unlikely. as a result of that optimization:
>
> WARNING: modpost: vmlinux: section mismatch in reference: __get_mem_config_intel+0x77 (section: .text.unlikely.) -> thread_throttle_mode_init (section: .init.text)
>
> Mark __get_mem_config_intel() as __init as well since it is only called
> from __init code, which clears up the warning.
>
> While __rdt_get_mem_config_amd() does not exhibit a warning because it
> does not call any __init code, it is a similar function that is only
> called from __init code like __get_mem_config_intel(), so mark it __init
> as well to keep the code symmetrical.
>
> Link: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6b11573b8c5e3d36beee099dbe7347c2a007bf53 [1]
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
> ---
Thank you very much.
With subject adjusted:
| Reviewed-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists