lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 05/15] hwmon: mark const init data with __initconst instead of __initdata
    On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:09:24AM -0400, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    I tried with gcc 4.4.3; it did not make a difference.

    > and include/linux/init.h has:
    >
    > You should insert __initdata between the variable name and equal
    > sign followed by value [...].
    >
    Seems to be a clear statement.

    > 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).
    >
    Apparently not for gcc 4.4.3, but possibly for others.

    Thanks,
    Guenter
    --
    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: 2012-03-31 22:19    [W:0.028 / U:29.968 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site