Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:32:36 +0200 | From | Sam Ravnborg <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] introduce __init_exit function annotation |
| |
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 05:16:13PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:14:32 +0200, > Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 04:52:12PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:02:30 +0200, > > > Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:02:48AM +0200, Domen Puncer wrote: > > > > > Introduce __init_exit, which is useful ie. for drivers that call > > > > > cleanup functions when they fail in __init functions. > > > > > > > > This is wrong. > > > > On arm (just one example of several) the __exit section are discarded > > > > at buildtime so any reference from __init to __exit will cause the > > > > linker to error out. > > > > > > Hmm, from what I see, it adds __init to the function. There is no > > > reference to __exit. > > > > The cleanup functions are marked __exit in the referenced case. > > My understanding is that it's the very purpose of this patch -- > change the mark from __exit to __init_exit for such clean-up > functions.
And that is wrong. See following example:
static void __init foo_init() { if (error) foo_exit(); }
static void __exit foo_exit() { }
If foo_init is annotated with __init_exit then in the build-in case it become __init and there is a reference to a non existing function because functions marked __exit are discarded during link or run-time (depending on arch).
If foo_exit() are marked __init_exit then it becomes __init in the non-module case which seems coorrect. If this is the intention of the patch then it should be OK but then this intention should be spelled out.
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/
| |