Re: [PATCH 23/32] x86: delete __cpuinit usage from all x86 files

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> The __cpuinit type of throwaway sections might have made sense
> some time ago when RAM was more constrained, but now the savings
> do not offset the cost and complications.  For example, the fix in
> commit 5e427ec2d0 ("x86: Fix bit corruption at CPU resume time")
> is a good example of the nasty type of bugs that can be created
> with improper use of the various __init prefixes.
> 
> After a discussion on LKML[1] it was decided that cpuinit should go
> the way of devinit and be phased out.  Once all the users are gone,
> we can then finally remove the macros themselves from linux/init.h.
> 
> Note that some harmless section mismatch warnings may result, since
> notify_cpu_starting() and cpu_up() are arch independent (kernel/cpu.c)
> are flagged as __cpuinit  -- so if we remove the __cpuinit from
> arch specific callers, we will also get section mismatch warnings.
> As an intermediate step, we intend to turn the linux/init.h cpuinit
> content into no-ops as early as possible, since that will get rid
> of these warnings.  In any case, they are temporary and harmless.
> 
> This removes all the arch/x86 uses of the __cpuinit macros from
> all C files.  x86 only had the one __CPUINIT used in assembly files,
> and it wasn't paired off with a .previous or a __FINIT, so we can
> delete it directly w/o any corresponding additional change there.
> 
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/20/589
> 
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
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/