Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:17:28 +0100 | From | Sam Ravnborg <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] __cpuinitconst and __devinitconst |
| |
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 08:33:35AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> 13.01.08 22:42 >>> > >> And I found another small buglet too. I hope to post a complete > >> solution later today. > > > >The modpost bits turned out to take longer than expected so > >they are not done yet. The problem was the modpost structure > >were not prepared for adding such additional chacks. > >So I reworked those bits and the patch has been sent out for review. > > > >What follows here is the changes for init.h + all linker scripts > >to show the idea. > > > >Next step is to beat modpost in shape and to post this on linux-arch. > > > >Note - in -mm there are changes to init.h so the logic > >to decide type of __meminit notation is much simpler. > > Yes, I certainly like this concept. What I would have wanted in that patch, > though, is that the read-only data would right away be included in > RODATA() rather than being put in DATA_DATA. Will fix that in next patch. My focus was on the concept when I did the patch but it is dead easy to fix for ll archs at once.
> Also, to shorten the > names a little, how about .{cpu,mem,dev}init.rodata? Good suggestion - will use these.
> The one thing that I'm not sure is really consistent yet wrt. the > constification is that now you need to write e.g. > > static const char __cpuinitcdata example[]; > > and (accidentally) omitting the 'const' (as it's really an apparently > redundant thing now) as in > > static char __cpuinitcdata example[]; > > will cause section type conflicts (at the compiler or linker level). I > therefore think that the 'const' should really be part of the > __{cpu,mem,dev}cdata definitions (requiring the attribute to be > placed properly, namely placement at the end of a declaration as > is possible with __{cpu,mem,dev}initdata is then not an option here).
I need to play a little with this before I make up my mind. I do not like the concpet of hiding the const too much - it will be non-obvious why the compiler complains if the only thing that distingush const from non-const is a small capital 'c' within __cpucinitdata (versus __cpuinitdata).
It can always be an incremental patch as my concpet does not prevent it and we have only a few const __initdata variables.
Sam
| |