Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:12:21 -0700 | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/3] hd eliminate bad section references |
| |
maximilian attems wrote: > Fix hd section references: > make parse_hd_setup() __init > > Error: ./drivers/ide/legacy/hd.o .text refers to 00000943 R_386_PC32 > .init.text > > Signed-off-by: maximilian attems <janitor@sternwelten.at> > > > --- linux-2.6.12-rc1-bk5/drivers/ide/legacy/hd.c.orig 2005-04-04 18:39:04.000000000 +0200 > +++ linux-2.6.12-rc1-bk5/drivers/ide/legacy/hd.c 2005-04-04 19:02:57.908576221 +0200 > @@ -851,7 +851,7 @@ > goto out; > } > > -static int parse_hd_setup (char *line) { > +static int __init parse_hd_setup (char *line) { > int ints[6]; > > (void) get_options(line, ARRAY_SIZE(ints), ints);
This one is fairly interesting and needs some resolution by someone who knows....
On the surface, the patch is correct.
Rusty, can you explain when __setup functions are called relative to in-kernel init functions? or put another way, can a __setup function safely call in __init function?
Here's the function in question:
static int parse_hd_setup (char *line) { int ints[6];
(void) get_options(line, ARRAY_SIZE(ints), ints); hd_setup(NULL, ints);
return 1; } __setup("hd=", parse_hd_setup);
Should we make parse_hd_setup() __init, or make hd_setup() non-__init, or something else?
{time passes, he looks]
OK, I looked at include/linux/init.h. From what I can see there, __setup() causes an .init.setup section to be emitted, so marking __setup() function as __init would make sense. I think that this patch is good.
Thanks. -- ~Randy - 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/
| |