Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:09:24 +0200 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 05/15] hwmon: mark const init data with __initconst instead of __initdata |
| |
Hello Guenter,
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 08:54:42PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 04:04:55PM -0400, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > As long as there is no other non-const variable marked __initdata in the > > same compilation unit it doesn't hurt. If there were one however > > compilation would fail with > > > > error: $variablename causes a section type conflict > > > > because a section containing const variables is marked read only and so > > cannot contain non-const variables. > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > > Cc: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> > > Cc: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@ericsson.com> > > Cc: lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org > > --- > > changes since (implicit) v1: > > - drop wrong changes to drivers/hwmon/w83627hf.c > > > > drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c | 18 +++++++++--------- > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c b/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c > > index a25350c..54922ed 100644 > > --- a/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c > > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c > > @@ -2619,15 +2619,15 @@ static struct platform_driver w83627ehf_driver = { > > static int __init w83627ehf_find(int sioaddr, unsigned short *addr, > > struct w83627ehf_sio_data *sio_data) > > { > > - static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627EHF[] = "W83627EHF"; > > - static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627EHG[] = "W83627EHG"; > > - static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627DHG[] = "W83627DHG"; > > - static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627DHG_P[] = "W83627DHG-P"; > > - static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627UHG[] = "W83627UHG"; > > - static const char __initdata sio_name_W83667HG[] = "W83667HG"; > > - static const char __initdata sio_name_W83667HG_B[] = "W83667HG-B"; > > - static const char __initdata sio_name_NCT6775[] = "NCT6775F"; > > - static const char __initdata sio_name_NCT6776[] = "NCT6776F"; > > + static const char sio_name_W83627EHF[] __initconst = "W83627EHF"; > > + static const char sio_name_W83627EHG[] __initconst = "W83627EHG"; > > + static const char sio_name_W83627DHG[] __initconst = "W83627DHG"; > > + static const char sio_name_W83627DHG_P[] __initconst = "W83627DHG-P"; > > + static const char sio_name_W83627UHG[] __initconst = "W83627UHG"; > > + static const char sio_name_W83667HG[] __initconst = "W83667HG"; > > + static const char sio_name_W83667HG_B[] __initconst = "W83667HG-B"; > > + static const char sio_name_NCT6775[] __initconst = "NCT6775F"; > > + static const char sio_name_NCT6776[] __initconst = "NCT6776F"; > > > Applied. > > Just wondering: Why not the following ? > > > + static const char __initconst sio_name_NCT6776[] = "NCT6776F"; > > It does not make a difference in the generated code, and appears to be > less confusing, at least to me. hmm, I thought it does, maybe it's compiler dependant?! At least gcc-4.4.info tells:
An attribute specifier list may appear immediately before the comma, `=' or semicolon terminating the declaration of an identifier other than a function definition.
and include/linux/init.h has:
You should insert __initdata between the variable name and equal sign followed by value [...].
I seem to remember that placing the attribute at the wrong place for a function made gcc ignore it (or apply it so something unintended).
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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/
| |