From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754425Ab1HSVNZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:13:25 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.125]:57168 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754558Ab1HSVNV (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:13:21 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=Pm0sEXe2MdIPK/rOEC7hwDW84D/yDsPO3JtCzsVYOFU= c=1 sm=0 a=aKKvsJ_FXZsA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:17 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=s8pGmF8eWzNV9ccvty4A:9 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=jeBq3FmKZ4MA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 67.242.120.143 Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: jump_label: arch_jump_label_text_poke_early: add missing __init From: Steven Rostedt To: Kevin Winchester Cc: jbaron@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: References: <1313539478-30303-1-git-send-email-kjwinchester@gmail.com> <1313778007.15704.106.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:13:16 -0400 Message-ID: <1313788396.15704.117.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 17:51 -0300, Kevin Winchester wrote: > On 19 August 2011 15:20, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 21:04 -0300, Kevin Winchester wrote: > >> arch_jump_label_text_poke_early calls text_poke_early, which is > >> an __init function. Thus arch_jump_label_text_poke_early should > >> be the same. > > > > but text_poke_early is not __init but instead __init_or_module. Your > > patch just caused this bug: > > > > Sorry about that. I have: > > # CONFIG_MODULES is not set > > which makes __init_or_module equivalent to __init for me. Thus the > patch was fine for my case, but I expect your modification is the > right thing to do overall. Um yeah. I guess you're another one just like Peter Zijlstra ... "Modules? Modules? We don't need no stinking modules!" -- Steve