Re: [GIT PULL] stable/for-ingo-v3.5 of IOAPIC abstraction (and thensome users) for v3.5

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
<konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 04:08:19PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
>> <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > +
>> > +struct x86_io_apic_ops x86_io_apic_ops = {
>> > +       .init   = native_io_apic_init_mappings,
>> > +       .read   = native_io_apic_read,
>> > +       .write  = native_io_apic_write,
>> > +       .modify = native_io_apic_modify,
>> > +};
>>
>> You'll get a section mismatch warning on this struct.  It's not a huge
>> deal, but native_io_apic_init_mappings is annotated as __init whereas
>> this struct isn't.  In practice it doesn't seem to matter as
>> x86_io_apic_ops.init is only called in setup_arch, but it's still a
>> valid warning.
>
> I think that the mismatch disappears if the structure has the word
> _ops in it. At least that is what I saw (when I ran with the MODULE_SECTION=y
> with the initial implementation of this and then fixed it up).
>
> However, let me double check - I might have seen that with something
> else and misremebered it.

Oh, you might very well be correct.  The bug has an older version of
this patch that just calls it 'x86_ioapic'.  Guess I'll need to poke
around and update whatever we're carrying to the latest version.

If it's gone, sorry for the noise.

josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/