From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757078Ab0FAPxi (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 11:53:38 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:39387 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755601Ab0FAPxg (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 11:53:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:49:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Daniel J Blueman , Akinobu Mita , Andrew Morton cc: Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [2.6.35-rc1, patch] fix cpu_chain section mismatch... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Daniel J Blueman wrote: > > In 2.6.35-rc1, __cpu_notify access cpu_chain, which shouldn't be > marked __cpuinitdata (via section mismatch warning). Hmm. Does this section mismatch go away if you instead mark cpu_notify(), __cpu_notify() and cpu_notify_nofail as "inline"? Or alternatively, maybe they should all be marked as __ref? I think the section mismatch started happening when those wrapper functions were created, but all the callers seem to be __ref or __cpuinit. Or maybe we should just make that variable be non-cpuinitdata like your patch suggests. Does anybody have strong preferences (patch appended for reference)? Linus --- > Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman > > diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c > index 8b92539..97d1b42 100644 > --- a/kernel/cpu.c > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ void cpu_maps_update_done(void) > mutex_unlock(&cpu_add_remove_lock); > } > > -static __cpuinitdata RAW_NOTIFIER_HEAD(cpu_chain); > +static RAW_NOTIFIER_HEAD(cpu_chain); > > /* If set, cpu_up and cpu_down will return -EBUSY and do nothing. > * Should always be manipulated under cpu_add_remove_lock > -- > Daniel J Blueman >