[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: wrong usage of __devexit_p and __exit_p
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 03:14:57PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:50:57PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I found several drivers that use __devexit_p and __exit_p on functions
> > that don't live in .devexit.text or .exit.text resp.
> >
> > The impact is either that these functions use memory without being used
> > or that they don't link.
> >
> > I send 24 patches as a reply to this mail. I choosed to move the
> > functions into the respective function instead of using the right
> > __{dev,}exit_p wrapper because it seems to me to have less impact.
> >
> > I didn't made the effort to find out the right people to Cc: but I hope
> > that Andrew takes care of that :-)
> Did you check that this did not introduce any new Section mismatch warnings?
> We have seen several __exit annotated functions that was used from __init
> annotated code or even from normal code.
> Thus the __exit annotation was wrong in these cases.
I wrote in the commit logs, that the functions are only used as argument
to __{dev,}exit_p. There are no direct calls. (IIRC there was only one
exception that I checked manually.)

I think the __{dev,}exit_p wrappers are only used to define remove
callbacks, so there should be no harm.

Best regards and thanks for your feedback,

Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | |
Peiner Strasse 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-12 15:47    [W:0.114 / U:1.272 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site