On 29 February 2016 at 19:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:10:06AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >> On 27 February 2016 at 13:21, Paul Gortmaker >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > In commit 941943cf519f7cacbbcecee5c4ef4b77b466bd5c ("drivers/hwtracing: >> > make coresight-* explicitly non-modular") we removed all uses of >> > modular functions/macros in favour of their built-in equivlents in >> > this subsystem. >> > >> > However that commit and commit 0bcbf2e30ff2271b54f54c8697a185f7d86ec6e4 >> > ("coresight: etm-perf: new PMU driver for ETM tracers") were in flight >> > at the same time, and hence one new non-modular user of module_init >> > crept back in. Fix it up like we did all the others. >> > >> > Since module_init translates to device_initcall in the non-modular >> > case, the init ordering remains unchanged with this commit. >> > >> > Cc: Alexander Shishkin <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Mathieu Poirier <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> >> > Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <[email protected]> >> > --- >> > drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm-perf.c | 4 ++-- >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm-perf.c >> > b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm-perf.c >> > index 36153a77e982..755125f7917f 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm-perf.c >> > +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm-perf.c >> > @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ >> > #include <linux/device.h> >> > #include <linux/list.h> >> > #include <linux/mm.h> >> > -#include <linux/module.h> >> > +#include <linux/init.h> >> > #include <linux/perf_event.h> >> > #include <linux/slab.h> >> > #include <linux/types.h> >> > @@ -390,4 +390,4 @@ static int __init etm_perf_init(void) >> > >> > return ret; >> > } >> > -module_init(etm_perf_init); >> > +device_initcall(etm_perf_init); >> >> Yes of course - Applied. >> >> Greg, given the triviality of the changes, can you still pick this up >> for the next merge window? > > Yes, want me to take it directly, or do you have more patches to send > me?
Please go ahead and pick it up - there will be no more changes for the 4.6 cycle. Acked-by: Mathieu Poirier <[email protected]> Thanks, Mathieu > > thanks, > > greg k-h
