Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Fixing improper annotation.

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/12/08, Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/11/08, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> >  >
> >  > okay - so i wont apply them until the full scope of the problems here
> >  >  is mapped. We might be best off by marking xsave_cntxt_init() non-init
> >  >  altogether for the time being?
> >
> > But, it's been called from an __init section, it will also trigger an
> >  warning too. So, it
> >   will remain as it was. If we goes to hunt these warnings ( I mean
> >  we've to replace __init __alloc_bootmem() with __cpuinit
> >  __alloc_bootmem() ) , it's not certain when it will stop. Likely , we
> >  need to replace a lots of __init with __cpuinit.
> >
>
> Actually , if we replace __init __alloc_bootmem() with __cpuinit 
> __alloc_bootmem() that doesn't solve the problem. The mentioned 
> warning generates when CONFIG_ARCH_BOOTMEM_NODE=y is set. I think 
> Ingo is right. We can mark xsave_cntxt_init() as non-init. And we 
> could teach modpost to not to generate the warning with __ref. Can 
> we, Ingo ?

sure. Marking stuff non-init is inherently safe as well.

	Ingo