Re: [PATCH] power: reset: at91: mark at91_wakeup_status non-__init

[Nicolas Ferre]

On 13/12/2023 at 08:25, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 02:50:02PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 10:46:49PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > From: Arnd Bergmann<arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Two copies of the at91_wakeup_status() function are called by the
> > > respective probe() callbacks and are marked __init, but the probe
> > > functions are no longer annotated that way. This works with gcc because
> > > the functions always get inlined, but clang keeps them separate, which
> > > can lead to executing freed memory:
> > >
> > > WARNING: modpost: vmlinux: section mismatch in reference: at91_poweroff_probe+0x80 (section: .text) -> at91_wakeup_status (section: .init.text)
> > > WARNING: modpost: vmlinux: section mismatch in reference: at91_shdwc_probe+0xcc (section: .text) -> at91_wakeup_status (section: .init.text)
> > >
> > > Drop the incorrect annotation on these.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 099806de68b7 ("power: reset: at91-poweroff: Stop using module_platform_driver_probe()")
> > > Fixes: dde74a5de817 ("power: reset: at91-sama5d2_shdwc: Stop using module_platform_driver_probe()")
> > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann<arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > Thanks, I sent the same change three weeks ago at this point:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/20231120-fix-at91-modpost-warnings-v1-1-813671933863@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Your commit message is a little better than mine and I don't really care
> > which one goes in but it would be good if this could get cleared up
> > soon...
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor<nathan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> I don't care either. Given the change is identical (Nathan's submission
> even has "index 126e774e210c..93eece027865 100644" which exactly matches
> Arnd's patch), I'll forward my Reviewed-by: tag to here:
>
> Reviewed-by: Uwe Kleine-König<u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Likewise:
Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Use whichever is preferred.
Regards,
  Nicolas