Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:36:27 +0800 | From | Zhong Li <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86,nmi: Fix section mismatch warnings on 32-bit |
| |
On 06/09/2012 04:51 AM, Don Zickus wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 08:48:00AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 03:43:25PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote: >>> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 10:03 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> I didn't think it would be compiler dependent as I do not know what >>>>>> compiler the reporter was using. I used a RHEL-6 4.4.4 compiler (which >>>>>> you probably don't have :^) ). >>>>> Indeed, somehow I failed to see the obvious - it's commit >>>>> 72b3fb24713755cf9740b403e95aa67ceedf3509 that causes >>>>> these problems. Instantiating static data like this just doesn't >>>>> play with any of the pointers passed being into .init.*. >>>>> >>>>> I'd suggest either open coding register_nmi_handler() (with >>>>> the static data put into __initdata), or further abstracting it >>>>> by allowing an optional fifth argument (specifying the section >>>>> annotation if needed). >>>> Ah. Thanks for figuring that out!! I will post a patch opencoding it. >>>> >>> Hi Don, >>> >>> How about the following patch, adding an optional fifth argument as Jan >>> mentioned? We don't need change other users of register_nmi_handler(). >> Ah, ok. I forgot about the variable args syntax. That works too. I give >> a quick test. > Apparently I was too slow. Ingo committed my other patch. I can ask him > to revert it and use your smaller/cleaner patch instead? Or is it big > deal to keep the other one? This other way is fine to me, they actually does the same thing.
Sorry for causing the trouble, though I don't remember seeing the warnings when converting it to static ...
Thanks, Zhong > Cheers, > Don >
| |