On 17/07/07 17:40 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:32:36 +0200, > Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 05:16:13PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:14:32 +0200, > > > Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 04:52:12PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:02:30 +0200, > > > > > Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:02:48AM +0200, Domen Puncer wrote: > > > > > > > Introduce __init_exit, which is useful ie. for drivers that call > > > > > > > cleanup functions when they fail in __init functions. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is wrong. > > > > > > On arm (just one example of several) the __exit section are > > > > > > discarded > > > > > > at buildtime so any reference from __init to __exit will cause the > > > > > > linker to error out. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, from what I see, it adds __init to the function. There is no > > > > > reference to __exit. > > > > > > > > The cleanup functions are marked __exit in the referenced case. > > > > > > My understanding is that it's the very purpose of this patch -- > > > change the mark from __exit to __init_exit for such clean-up > > > functions. > > > > And that is wrong. > > You misunderstood. What I meant is the case like this: > > static void __init_exit cleanup() > { > ... > } > > static void __init foo_init() > { > if (error) > cleanup(); > } > > static void __exit foo_exit() > { > cleanup(); > }
Uh, yes, this, or just __init_exit foo_exit() as in Sam's example. It seemed obvious to me, sorry. > > Currently, there is no proper way to mark cleanup(). Neither __init, > __exit, __devinit nor __devexit can be used there. > > > Takashi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/