Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:37:09 +0100 | From | Sam Ravnborg <> | Subject | Re: wrong usage of __devexit_p and __exit_p |
| |
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:15:00PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Sam, > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:21:09PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:55:20PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > Hello Sam, > > > > > > > > Did you check that this did not introduce any new Section mismatch warnings? > > > > > We have seen several __exit annotated functions that was used from __init > > > > > annotated code or even from normal code. > > > > > Thus the __exit annotation was wrong in these cases. > > > > I wrote in the commit logs, that the functions are only used as argument > > > > to __{dev,}exit_p. There are no direct calls. (IIRC there was only one > > > > exception that I checked manually.) > > > Actually the case I remembered here isn't part of the series. > > > > > > > I think the __{dev,}exit_p wrappers are only used to define remove > > > > callbacks, so there should be no harm. > > > In the meantime I checked this: > > > > > > ~/gsrc/linux-2.6$ git diff-tree -r linus/master expsec-master | cut -f 2 | xargs grep -h -E '__(dev)?exit_p' > > > .remove = __devexit_p(s3c_adc_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(s3c_pwm_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(virtblk_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(virtrng_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(stli_pciremove) > > > .remove = __devexit_p(hifn_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(mpc85xx_pci_err_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(mv64x60_pci_err_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(max7301_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(bbc_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(grover_remove), > > > .remove = __exit_p(pxa_camera_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(asic3_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(ilo_remove), > > > .remove = __exit_p(mxcnd_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(virtnet_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(atp870u_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(megaraid_detach_one), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(stex_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(jsm_remove_one), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(sc26xx_driver_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(spidev_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(vhci_hcd_remove), > > > .remove = __devexit_p(virtballoon_remove), > > > > > > So in the patched files __(dev)?exit_p is only used to fill struct > > > members. Provided this is the only usage of the respective > > > functions---and I checked that---it doesn't make sense that they don't > > > live in .devexit.text (or .exit.text respectively). > > > > > > Does it make sence for you, too? > > > > Yes - if I understood you correct. > > > > You already convinced me with your first mail that you had checked > > that the functions was not used for anything else then the exit path. > So I can interpret this as a general Acked-by:?
Yes.
Sam -- 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/
| |