Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:39:02 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Fixing improper annotation. |
| |
* Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/08, Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/11/08, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > > > > > okay - so i wont apply them until the full scope of the problems here > > > is mapped. We might be best off by marking xsave_cntxt_init() non-init > > > altogether for the time being? > > > > But, it's been called from an __init section, it will also trigger an > > warning too. So, it > > will remain as it was. If we goes to hunt these warnings ( I mean > > we've to replace __init __alloc_bootmem() with __cpuinit > > __alloc_bootmem() ) , it's not certain when it will stop. Likely , we > > need to replace a lots of __init with __cpuinit. > > > > Actually , if we replace __init __alloc_bootmem() with __cpuinit > __alloc_bootmem() that doesn't solve the problem. The mentioned > warning generates when CONFIG_ARCH_BOOTMEM_NODE=y is set. I think > Ingo is right. We can mark xsave_cntxt_init() as non-init. And we > could teach modpost to not to generate the warning with __ref. Can > we, Ingo ?
sure. Marking stuff non-init is inherently safe as well.
Ingo
| |