Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] x86/xen: fix section of xen_init_time_ops() in header

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 04.09.17 at 14:43, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04/09/17 13:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 04.09.17 at 12:35, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 04/09/17 11:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04.09.17 at 10:17, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 03/09/17 10:38, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
>>>>>> Commit d162809f85b4 ("xen/x86: Do not call xen_init_time_ops() until
>>>>>> shared_info is initialized") moved xen_init_time_ops() from __init to
>>>>>> __ref without updating xen-ops.h accordingly. Fix this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: d162809f85b4 ("xen/x86: Do not call xen_init_time_ops() until
>>>>>> shared_info is initialized")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Iooss <nicolas.iooss_linux@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  arch/x86/xen/xen-ops.h | 2 +-
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/xen-ops.h b/arch/x86/xen/xen-ops.h
>>>>>> index 0d5004477db6..b2a5d48a2c2a 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/xen-ops.h
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/xen-ops.h
>>>>>> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ void xen_setup_runstate_info(int cpu);
>>>>>>  void xen_teardown_timer(int cpu);
>>>>>>  u64 xen_clocksource_read(void);
>>>>>>  void xen_setup_cpu_clockevents(void);
>>>>>> -void __init xen_init_time_ops(void);
>>>>>> +void __ref xen_init_time_ops(void);
>>>>>>  void __init xen_hvm_init_time_ops(void);
>>>>> When correcting this could you please modify the prototypes to comply to
>>>>> the intended form as noted in include/linux/init.h (the __ref or __init
>>>>> annotations should be just before the ending semicolon)?
>>>> Why would these annotations be kept on the declarations anyway?
>>>> Attributes affecting code/data placement generally belong on the
>>>> definitions only.
>>> Because:
>>>
>>> a) Thatâs what the coding style says, and
>>>
>>> b) So various static analysis can be done (e.g. sparse) on an individual
>>> translation unit basis.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your objection to having annotations on declarations is why I've never
>>> got around to adding sparse to the hypervisor build.
>> Would you mind educating me what use these annotations can be
>> for static analysis? If they're useful in headers, I would stop
>> objecting to them being added there, but I'd then demand for them
>> to never be present on non-static definitions (unless there are
>> attributes where the compiler requires them to be repeated, but I
>> think all attributes are cumulative).
> 
> For one, finding calls to __init functions from non __init functions.

Hmm, that's been solved differently on Linux, so I wouldn't have
assumed this is something to use sparse for.

Jan