Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:43:27 +0100 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: 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, Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 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 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/
| |