![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi Sam, On 5/11/07, Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:54:27PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 01:51:47PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org> > > > Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:34:18 -0700 > > > > > > > MODPOST seems to be spewing bogus warnings. It's not clear how best > > > > to fix it so perhaps we should silence it for now? > > > > > > Most of them are legitimate, the only one that needs sorting > > > is the mm/slab.c case and people are working on that. > > > > > > The rest are useful and I've been working to fix things up > > > on sparc64 and the networking, and in fact I'm very happy > > > about these notifications. > > > > > > Please don't apply a sledgehammer to this issue, thanks. > > > > I've not had one accurate one on ARM yet. > You had one patch from me in latest submission to linus that > was a clear bug. > > > > > Here's another example: > > > > WARNING: init/built-in.o - Section mismatch: reference to .init.text: > > from .text between 'rest_init' (at offset 0x4c) and 'run_init_process' > > > > from init/main.c: > > > > static void noinline rest_init(void) > > __releases(kernel_lock) > > > > static void run_init_process(char *init_filename) > > > > Clearly, it just does _not_ work. > As I have already explained to you this is a binutils issue > that causes this false positive. > > The plan is to annotate functions that are not __init that > they intentional reference a function or data in a init section. > I just not there yet. The thought makes me *extremely* uncomfortable. Better to _heed_ warnings, than _hide_ them, isn't it -- they only tell us what the code says, after all. Personally, I'd much rather see a few warnings on my screen (which I _know_ are false positives) than hide a genuine potential issue only to crash later. For bogus warnings caused by binutils issues, the solution clearly lies in fixing _binutils_. For the "genuine false positives" (where we *do* call .init.text from .text, but somehow ensure that it doesn't happen after boot) -- I don't really know, but a solution that solves the (kmem_cache_create -> setup_cpu_cache + g_cpucache_up -> set_up_list3s) problem in _logic_ sounds more elegant to me, than inventing something like __nowarn_calls_init (?). The problem with stuff of the latter sort is that they often tend to be abused later by everyone even where they are avoidable / inapplicable, which opens up a can of worms. Just my 2 paise, Satyam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-05-11 06:31 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||