lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-18 22:41    [W:0.068 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site