Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Jul 2011 19:57:31 +0530 | From | Raghavendra D Prabhu <> | Subject | Re: [TOME] Re: [PATCH] Modpost section mismatch fix |
| |
* On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 10:13:23AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote: >On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 03:46:46AM +0530, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote: >> * On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 09:49:48AM +0100, Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote: >> >On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 04:55 +0530, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote: >> >>[Sorry if duplicate, one earlier was corrupt]
>> >>Hi, >> >> I got section mismatches reported by modpost in latest build. It got >> >> reported for xen_register_pirq and xen_unplug_emulated_devices >> >> functions.
>> >> xen_register_pirq makes reference to >> >> acpi_sci_override_gsi in init.data section; marking >> >> xen_register_pirq with __init is not feasible since calls are made >> >> to it from acpi_register_gsi in non-init contexts. So marking it >> >> __refdata based on assumption that when acpi_sci_override_gsi is >> >> referenced, it is in early stages where it is alive.
>> >I don't think this assumption holds, since xen_register_pirq can be >> >called at any time and basically unconditionally references >> >acpi_sci_override_gsi.
>> Yeah, that has been my guess as well, however I am not privy to the >> inner workings of Xen, so was not sure.
>> >If we don't want to remove the __init from acpi_sci_override_gsi then >> >perhaps xen_setup_acpi_sci needs to stash it somewhere?
>> >Or maybe xen_register_pirq could take an "int force_irq" which, if not >> >-1, would force a particular IRQ. The callsite in xen_setup_acpi_sci >> >(actually via xen_register_gsi so the param would need to be propagated >> >there) would be the only actual user?
>> xen_register_gsi and hence, xen_register_pirq are called from >> init (with xen_setup_acpi_sci) and non-init (with >> acpi_register_gsi_xen); since xen_set_acpi_sci calls it with gsi == >> acpi_sci_override_gsi and is marked __init, the best way would be to >> call xen_register_gsi and xen_register_pirq with a boolean argument like >> sci_override to obviate the need to use acpi_sci_override_gsi in >> register_pirq. I will send the patch with this change if it looks good. > >Hold on, let me rebase #stable/pci.cleanups and see if the issue >here disappears. Thanks, will wait until the rebase and test after that. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |