From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964994Ab3FTAha (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:37:30 -0400 Received: from mail1.windriver.com ([147.11.146.13]:60969 "EHLO mail1.windriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935382Ab3FTAh3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:37:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:36:54 -0400 From: Paul Gortmaker To: Yinghai Lu CC: Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86: Fix section mismatch on load_ucode_ap Message-ID: <20130620003654.GB15693@windriver.com> References: <1371654926-11729-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86: Fix section mismatch on load_ucode_ap] On 19/06/2013 (Wed 17:02) Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM, tip-bot for Paul Gortmaker > wrote: > > Commit-ID: 949785996ec2250fa958fc3a924e5186e9a8fa2c > > Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/949785996ec2250fa958fc3a924e5186e9a8fa2c > > Author: Paul Gortmaker > > AuthorDate: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:15:26 -0400 > > Committer: H. Peter Anvin > > CommitDate: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:43:59 -0700 > > > > x86: Fix section mismatch on load_ucode_ap > > > > We are in the process of removing all the __cpuinit annotations. > > While working on making that change, an existing problem was > > made evident: > > > > WARNING: arch/x86/kernel/built-in.o(.text+0x198f2): Section mismatch > > in reference from the function cpu_init() to the function > > .init.text:load_ucode_ap() The function cpu_init() references > > the function __init load_ucode_ap(). This is often because cpu_init > > lacks a __init annotation or the annotation of load_ucode_ap is wrong. > > > > This now appears because in my working tree, cpu_init() is no longer > > tagged as __cpuinit, and so the audit picks up the mismatch. The 2nd > > hypothesis from the audit is the correct one, as there was an incorrect > > __init tag on the prototype in the header (but __cpuinit was used on > > the function itself.) > > > > The audit is telling us that the prototype's __init annotation took > > effect and the function did land in the .init.text section. Checking > > with objdump on a mainline tree that still has __cpuinit shows that > > the __cpuinit on the function takes precedence over the __init on the > > prototype, but that won't be true once we make __cpuinit a no-op. > > > > Even though we are removing __cpuinit, we temporarily align both > > the function and the prototype on __cpuinit so that the changeset > > can be applied to stable trees if desired. > > > > [ hpa: build fix only, no object code change ] > > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner > > Cc: Ingo Molnar > > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" > > Cc: stable # 3.9+ > > Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1371654926-11729-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com > > Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin > > --- > > arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h > > index 6825e2e..6bc3985 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h > > @@ -60,11 +60,11 @@ static inline void __exit exit_amd_microcode(void) {} > > #ifdef CONFIG_MICROCODE_EARLY > > #define MAX_UCODE_COUNT 128 > > extern void __init load_ucode_bsp(void); > > -extern __init void load_ucode_ap(void); > > +extern void __cpuinit load_ucode_ap(void); > > why not just dropping __init in header file? Why? Because then the mis-match remains, and the next person along who cares about understanding what it really means, has to repeat the same research that I did in order to understand what was really happening (or in this case, not happening). Why do that? That doesn't make sense. Paul. -- > > > > extern int __init save_microcode_in_initrd(void); > > #else > > static inline void __init load_ucode_bsp(void) {} > > -static inline __init void load_ucode_ap(void) {} > > +static inline void __cpuinit load_ucode_ap(void) {} > > static inline int __init save_microcode_in_initrd(void) > > { > > return 0; > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/