Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 10 May 2009 20:33:03 +0200 (CEST) | From | Guennadi Liakhovetski <> | Subject | Re: dubious section mismatch test (was Re: [PULL] soc-camera: one commit as v4l2-dev preparation) |
| |
On Sat, 9 May 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 06:13:13PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Sat, 9 May 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x0): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devinit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_probe() > > > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references > > > the function __devinit soc_camera_pdrv_probe() > > > If the reference is valid then annotate the > > > variable with __init* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable: > > > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, > > > > > > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x8): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devexit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_remove() > > > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references > > > the function __devexit soc_camera_pdrv_remove() > > > If the reference is valid then annotate the > > > variable with __exit* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable: > > > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, > > > > FWIW, I find this test dubious. Matching on symbol names doesn't seem like > > a good idea to me. Can we introduce a new marker instead something like > > > > static struct whatever_driver __driver driver = { > > .probe = my_probe, > > .remove = __exit_p(my_remove), > > }; > > > > to put them in a new special section? Or is there a better solution? > > We already have that: > __refdata would be your choice in this case.
Aha, great! Then also the warning text should be changed, shouldn't it?
Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/
| |