Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Jun 2010 21:49:48 +0100 | Subject | Re: [2.6.35-rc1, patch] fix cpu_chain section mismatch... | From | Daniel J Blueman <> |
| |
Hi Linus,
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Daniel J Blueman wrote: >> >> In 2.6.35-rc1, __cpu_notify access cpu_chain, which shouldn't be >> marked __cpuinitdata (via section mismatch warning). > > Hmm. Does this section mismatch go away if you instead mark cpu_notify(), > __cpu_notify() and cpu_notify_nofail as "inline"? Or alternatively, maybe > they should all be marked as __ref?
Indeed the inline and __ref approaches quench the warning too.
> I think the section mismatch started happening when those wrapper > functions were created, but all the callers seem to be __ref or __cpuinit. > > Or maybe we should just make that variable be non-cpuinitdata like your > patch suggests.
At least this is the minimal change until a good reason comes along.
Thanks, Daniel
> Does anybody have strong preferences (patch appended for reference)? > > Linus > --- >> Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com> >> >> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c >> index 8b92539..97d1b42 100644 >> --- a/kernel/cpu.c >> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c >> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ void cpu_maps_update_done(void) >> mutex_unlock(&cpu_add_remove_lock); >> } >> >> -static __cpuinitdata RAW_NOTIFIER_HEAD(cpu_chain); >> +static RAW_NOTIFIER_HEAD(cpu_chain); >> >> /* If set, cpu_up and cpu_down will return -EBUSY and do nothing. >> * Should always be manipulated under cpu_add_remove_lock -- Daniel J Blueman -- 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/
| |