On 13/11/2017 11:11, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 11:24:56PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> The newly added function triggers a harmless Kbuild warning because >>>> of a missing annotation: >>>> >>>> WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x448098): Section mismatch in reference from the >>>> function timer_of_exit() to the function .init.text:timer_clk_exit() >>>> The function timer_of_exit() references >>>> the function __init timer_clk_exit(). >>>> This is often because timer_of_exit lacks a __init >>>> annotation or the annotation of timer_clk_exit is wrong. >>>> >>>> The function is only called from other __init functions, so it >>>> can safely be marked as __init as well. >>> >>> Hmm. I don't see any caller at all. From the intention of the patch I >>> assume this isn't designed for using from init functions, so we rather have >>> to remove the __init annotations from the called functions. >>> >>> Sudeep posted a patch which does that: >>> >>> >>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] >>> >>> Though I rather would know whether this function is going to be used at >>> all and what the intention of this patch was. >>> >>> Benjamin???? >> >> My interpretation was that timer drivers are still supposed to be >> unregistered >> at module unload time, but that you might use the new timer_of_exit() >> in the failure path of whatever function calls timer_of_init() successfully >> when something fails in the next step. >> >> Sudeep's interpretation also makes sense, I had not thought of that, but >> I now found the patch that adds a user in an init function: >> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg1519644.html >> >> It seems I guessed right and Sudeep guessed wrong (both by pure chance >> I admit). > > Ah OK, I just went by name that it will be called by some exit/remove > function. > >> Both patches solve the problem, Sudeep's version is a little >> more robust in case we ever add a caller in an __exit function (which I >> think is currently not allowed), while mine saves a little bit of memory >> and matches the current usage better. >> > > Agreed, may be if we add users which is called from init functions, the > warning should disappear. Also as tglx suggested, we could rename if it's > just used from init function error/exit paths.
The drivers are not compiled as module AFAICT, the function will be called in the init error path. -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
