Re: wrong usage of __devexit_p and __exit_p

["Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 03:14:57PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:50:57PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I found several drivers that use __devexit_p and __exit_p on functions
> > that don't live in .devexit.text or .exit.text resp.
> > 
> > The impact is either that these functions use memory without being used
> > or that they don't link.
> > 
> > I send 24 patches as a reply to this mail.  I choosed to move the
> > functions into the respective function instead of using the right
> > __{dev,}exit_p wrapper because it seems to me to have less impact.
> > 
> > I didn't made the effort to find out the right people to Cc: but I hope
> > that Andrew takes care of that :-)
> 
> Did you check that this did not introduce any new Section mismatch warnings?
> We have seen several __exit annotated functions that was used from __init
> annotated code or even from normal code.
> Thus the __exit annotation was wrong in these cases.
I wrote in the commit logs, that the functions are only used as argument
to __{dev,}exit_p.  There are no direct calls. (IIRC there was only one
exception that I checked manually.)

I think the __{dev,}exit_p wrappers are only used to define remove
callbacks, so there should be no harm.

Best regards and thanks for your feedback,
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                              | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                    | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Strasse 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686              | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |